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
.
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?