American Specialty Health Incorporated v. American Specialty Healthcare Inc. et al

Filing 11

ORDER GRANTING 9 Plaintiff American Specialty Health Incorporated's Notice of Motion and Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants American Specialty Healthcare, Inc., et al. to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint. The hearing set for 11/1/2017, is hereby VACATED. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/5/2017. (Timken, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FRESNO DIVISION 11 12 LOS A NG EL ES ATTO RNEY S AT LAW M C D ERMOTT W ILL & E MERY LLP 8 Case No. 1:17-cv-01203-DAD-SKO AMERICAN SPECIALTY HEALTH INCORPORATED, 13 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AMERICAN SPECIALTY HEALTH INCORPORATED’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS AMERICAN SPECIALTY HEALTHCARE, INC., ET AL. TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 16 17 AMERICAN SPECIALTY HEALTHCARE, INC., ET AL., Defendants. 18 (Doc. 10) 19 Date: Time: Ctrm: Judge: 20 November 1, 2017 9:30 a.m. 7, 6th Floor Hon. Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto 21 22 Plaintiff American Specialty Health Incorporated (“Plaintiff”) filed its complaint on 23 September 6, 2017. (Doc. 1.) Defendants American Specialty Healthcare, Inc., American 24 College LLC, Gurpreet Singh, and Gia Smith (collectively, “Defendants”) were served on 25 September 12, 2017. (Docs. 5–8.) Defendants’ responsive pleadings were therefore due twenty- 26 one (21) days after service, or October 3, 2017. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). That same day, 27 Plaintiff filed its “Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants to Answer or 28 Otherwise Respond to Complaint” (the “Motion”). (Doc. 9.) -1ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 1 Requests for extension are governed by Rule 144 of the Local Rules of the United States 2 District Court, Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”). Local Rule 144(d) explains that 3 “[r]equests for Court-approved extensions brought on the required filing date for the pleading or 4 other document are looked upon with disfavor.” The parties are hereby admonished that any 5 future requests for extensions of time shall be brought in advance of the required filing date. 6 However, given that Plaintiff consents to a 30-day extension of time for Defendants to respond to 7 the complaint (as evidenced by the fact that Plaintiff is the movant), the Court GRANTS the 8 Motion. Accordingly, Defendants have up to and including November 2, 2017, to respond to 9 Plaintiff’s complaint. 11 12 LOS A NG EL ES ATTO RNEY S AT LAW M C D ERMOTT W ILL & E MERY LLP 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: 14 October 5, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME .

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?