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)

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

.