Meyer Manufacturing Company Limited v. Telebrands Corp.

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/6/12 ORDERING that Defendant's Motion to Transfer 15 is DENIED. Defendant's MOTION for extension of time 21 is DENIED. Defendant SHALL file its answer to Plaintiff's complaint within five (5) days of the issuance of this order. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10

MEYER MANUFACTURING
COMPANY LIMITED, a
Hong Kong Corporation,
NO. CIV. S-11-3153 LKK/DAD

11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
O R D E R

13

TELEBRANDS CORP., a New
Jersey Corporation,

14
Defendant.
/

15
16

This action for declaratory judgment and cancellation of a

17

trademark is brought by Plaintiff Meyer Manufacturing Company

18

Limited (“Meyer”), a distributor of cookware, against Defendant

19

Telebrands

20

Trademark Registration No. 3,843,331, which allegedly “covers the

21

color green on the inside surface of pots and pans.”

22

ECF No. 1, at 2.

Corporation

(“Telebrands”),

a

business

with

U.S.

Pl’s Compl.,

23

Presently before the court is Defendant Telebrand’s motion to

24

transfer venue to the District of New Jersey, brought pursuant to

25

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which Plaintiff Meyer opposes.

26

Mot., ECF No. 15; Pl’s Opp’n, ECF No. 24. Defendant has also filed
1

See Def’s

1

a motion for an extension of time to file an answer to Plaintiff’s

2

complaint, which Plaintiff opposes.

3

Pl’s Opp’n, ECF No. 25.

4

See Def’s Mot., ECF No. 21;

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

5

On November 29, 2011, Plaintiff Meyer filed a complaint

6

against Defendant Telebrands for: (1) declaratory judgment of non-

7

infringement of trademarks; and (2) cancellation of the U.S.

8

Trademark Registration No. 3,843,331.

9

Plaintiff Meyer is a corporation organized under the laws of

10

Hongkong, with its principal place of business in Hongkong, China.

11

Id. at ¶ 1.

12

affiliate

13

headquartered in Vallejo, Solano County, California, and its

14

cookware is sold throughout the world, including within the Eastern

15

District of California.

Pl’s Compl., ECF No. 1.

According to the complaint, Meyer’s United States
and

distributor,

Meyer

Corporation,

U.S.,

is

Id.

16

According to Plaintiff, Defendant Telebrands is a corporation

17

organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey and registered

18

to do business in California.

19

“Telebrands is engaged in the business of selling non-stick cooking

20

pans with green ceramic coating inside the pans,” which are “sold

21

to

22

jurisdiction of this Court.”

consumers

via

Id. at ¶ 2.

television

and

the

Plaintiff asserts that

internet

within

the

Id.

23

Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, the following facts: (1) on or

24

about October 28, 2011, counsel for Telebrands, Robert T. Maldonado

25

of Cooper & Dunham LLP, sent a letter to the President and CEO of

26

one of Meyer’s largest television and online retail customers, in
2

1

which Mr. Maldonado asserted that Meyer’s product, “Earthpan,”

2

incorporates the color green on the inside surface of the pan, in

3

violation of Telebrands’ trademark rights; (2) the October 28, 2011

4

letter concluded by demanding that the retailer cease and desist

5

advertising, offering for sale, distributing and selling the green

6

“Earthpan” skillet set; (3) shortly thereafter, in communications

7

between counsel for Meyer (Scott Peterson) and Robert Maldonado via

8

phone and letter, Mr. Maldonado made it clear that Telebrands

9

intended

to

fully

protect

and

assert

its

trademark

rights,

10

whereupon Mr. Peterson explained that if Telebrands did not retract

11

its cease and desist demand, Meyer would pursue litigation to

12

resolve the issue; and (4) “Meyers sells its Earthpan skillets

13

through various channels, including through major television and

14

online retailers.”

Id. at ¶¶ 7,8, 19.

15

On November 29, 2011, the court issued a summons directed to

16

Defendant Telebrands which required Telebrands to file an answer

17

to the complaint within twenty-one days. Summons Iss., ECF No. 4.

18

On December 20, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation extending the

19

time for Telebrands to file an answer to January 23, 2012.

20

ECF No. 8.

21

Stip.,

On January 23, 2012, Defendant Telebrands filed the motion to

22

transfer presently before the court.

23

Defendant makes, inter alia, the following assertions: (1) although

24

Meyer Corporation U.S. is headquartered in Vallejo, Solano County,

25

California, Meyer Corporation U.S. is not a party to the present

26

action; (2) Telebrands’ “sole place of business is Fairfield, New
3

Def’s Mot., ECF No. 15.

1

Jersey,” and Telebrands “does not have any employees located in

2

California,” nor does it have any physical business location,

3

office or mailing address, bank accounts, real estate, or employees

4

in California; (3) counsel for Telebrands, and the sender of the

5

October 28, 2011 letter, is located in New York, New York; (4) the

6

recipient of the October 28, 2011 letter was the President and CEO

7

of QVC, Inc. (“QVC”), a company which is headquartered in West

8

Chester,

9

Telebrands via phone and letter following the October 28, 2011

10

letter, is located in Chicago, Illinois; (6) Telebrands’ employees

11

are all located in or around New Jersey and, because of its “lean

12

corporate structure,” “the absence of even a few of its key

13

employees during the course of litigation in California would have

14

a substantial adverse impact on the operation of its business”; (7)

15

“nonparty witnesses who may be important in this case include

16

employees of QVC,” which is “headquartered in Pennsylvania, which

17

borders

18

California would substantially increase the costs for Telebrands.”

19

Def’s Mot., ECF No. 15, Ex. 1, at 5-6, 9, 11; Ex. 2, at 2-3.

Pennsylvania;

New

Jersey”;

(5)

and

counsel

(8)

for

Meyer,

“[l]itigating

who

this

contacted

action

in

20

Plaintiff asserts, inter alia, that: (1) Meyer’s counsel, Dean

21

Krause, “primarily works out of Solano County, California”; (2)

22

“Meyer’s only arguable connection to the United States exists

23

through its affiliate and largest customer–-MUS [Meyer Corporation,

24

U.S.],”

25

California; (3) “Meyer anticipates deposing and/or calling to

26

testify witnesses with knowledge of this dispute who are located

which

is

headquartered

4

in

Vallejo,

Solano

County,

1

in Solano County, including Mr. Krause”; (4) discoverable documents

2

in the U.S. “that relate to Meyer’s Earthpan products are housed

3

at MUS’s headquarters” and relate to “information concerning

4

Telebrands’ pre-suit communications with QVC and Meyer”; (5) “Meyer

5

also anticipates calling one or more witnesses located in Hongkong,

6

and

7

information regarding Meyer’s green Earthpan skillet”; (6) “Meyer

8

does not do business in New Jersey and it does not have any

9

registered agent, offices, or even customers in New Jersey,” and

10

thus, although “Meyer could have filed its declaratory judgment

11

action in the District of New Jersey,” “Defendant could not have

12

brought an infringement action against Meyer in New Jersey because

13

Meyer is not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey”; (7)

14

Telebrands “sells the OrGreenic skillet, one of the products

15

presently at issue, in the Eastern [D]istrict” of California and

16

“has

17

Sacramento,

18

California” and “has carried on litigation in various venues

19

throughout the country,” including in the Central District of

20

California; (9) “Earthpan products are distributed by MUS,” and

21

therefore, “any impact on the profitability of the Earthpan line

22

of products will be felt by MUS in this District”; (10) “to the

23

extent witnesses from Hongkong must travel to the United States,

24

it will be faster, cheaper, and more efficient for those witnesses

25

. . . to travel to the West Coast of the United States than to the

26

East Coast”; and (11) in an action, such as this, “where no

producing

even

documents

been
CA”;

featured
(8)

housed

on

at

Defendant

5

in

Hongkong

least
“has

one
a

with

local

respect

newscast

registered

agent

to

in
in

1

immobile physical evidence is involved, venue will have little

2

impact on access to sources of proof” because documents can be sent

3

electronically, “[w]itnesses are likely to be deposed where they

4

reside . . . and videoconference arrangements may even be made for

5

overseas witnesses.”

6

Decl., ECF No. 24, Ex. 3.

7

On

February

14,

Pl’s Opp’n, ECF No. 24, at 6-15; Krause

2012,

Defendant

filed

a

motion

for

an

8

extension of time to answer the complaint, pending a decision on

9

the pending motion to transfer the action. Def’s Mot., ECF No. 21.

10

Defendant argues that “the answer, and any counter-claims, may

11

depend upon the court in which the action is pending.”

12

1, at 2.

13

filing the answer to the complaint to ten (10) days following a

14

decision by the court on the pending Motion to Transfer.”

15

3.

Id., Ex.

Defendant “requests that the court extend the time for

Id. at

16

Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s motion for an extension of time

17

and requests the court to “order Defendant to file its answer

18

within five (5) days of the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion

19

to Extend the Time to Answer.”

20

notes that, after agreeing to the original stipulation to extend

21

Defendant’s

22

Plaintiff again offered Defendant an extension to February 20,

23

2012.

24

////

25
26

time

for

filing

Pl’s Opp’n, ECF No. 25.

an

answer

to

January

Plaintiff

23,

2012,

Grill Decl., ECF No. 25, Ex. 1, at 1.

II.

STANDARD FOR MOTION TO TRANSFER

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure § 1404(a), the court may
6

1

transfer an action to another district: (1) for the convenience of

2

the parties; (2) for the convenience of the witnesses, and (3) in

3

the interest of justice provided that the action might have been

4

brought in the transferee court.

5

district court has broad discretion “to adjudicate motions for

6

transfer

7

consideration

8

Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting

9

Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 101

10

L.Ed.2d 22 (1988)); see also Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Weigel,

11

426 F.2d 1356, 1358 (9th Cir. 1970).

12

according
of

to

an

convenience

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

‘individualized,
and

fairness.’”

The

case-by-case
Jones

v.

GNC

Transfer is discretionary but is governed by certain factors

13

specified in the statute and in relevant case law.

An action may

14

not be transferred to a district where venue would have been

15

improper if it had originally been filed there.

16

determines that venue would be proper in the transferee district,

17

it must determine whether the action should be transferred to that

18

district.

Once the court

19

In deciding whether to transfer on grounds of convenience and

20

in the interest of justice, the court considers the following eight

21

factors, where relevant: (1) the location where the relevant

22

agreements were negotiated and executed; (2) the state that is most

23

familiar with the governing law; (3) the plaintiff’s choice of

24

forum; (4) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum; (5) the

25

contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen

26

forum; (6) the differences in the cost of litigation in the two
7

1

forums; (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel

2

attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses; and (8) the ease of

3

access to sources of proof.

4

F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000).

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211

5

The burden is on the party seeking transfer to show that when

6

these factors are applied, the balance of convenience clearly

7

favors transfer.

8

279 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n

9

v. National Football League, 89 F.R.D. 497, 499 (C.D. Cal. 1981),

Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270,

10

aff’d, 726 F.2d 1381, 1399 (9th Cir. 1984).

11

a defendant merely to show that it prefers another forum nor will

12

transfer

13

inconvenience from one party to another. Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376

14

U.S. 612, 645-46, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964).

be

ordered

the

result

is

merely

to

shift

the

III. ANALYSIS

15
16

if

It is not enough for

A. Motion to Transfer

17

i. Whether Venue is Proper in the District of New Jersey

18

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that “For the convenience of

19

parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court

20

may transfer any civil action to any other district or division

21

where it might have been brought.”

22

Plaintiff Meyer could have brought this action against Telebrands

23

in the District of New Jersey.

24

(“To be sure, Meyer could have filed its declaratory judgment

25

action in the District of New Jersey.”).

26

determines that venue would be proper in the District of New

Neither party contests that

See Pl’s Opp’n, ECF No. 24, at 8

8

The court therefore

1

Jersey, and now considers whether the action should be transferred

2

to that district.

3

ii. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum

4

Although a plaintiff's choice of forum is generally granted

5

great weight, Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987),

6

courts substantially reduce their deference to a plaintiff's choice

7

of forum when the plaintiff does not reside in the forum. See New

8

Image, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 536 F.Supp. 58, 59 (E.D.Pa.

9

1981); Bryant v. ITT Corp., 48 F.Supp.2d 829, 832 (N.D.Ill. 1999);

10

see also Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. C.R. England,

11

Inc., No. 02-cv-5664 AWI SMS, 2002 WL 32831640, at *7 (E.D.Cal.

12

Aug. 19, 2002) (finding that deference to plaintiff's choice of

13

forum is diminished where plaintiff does not reside in chosen forum

14

and none of the events alleged in the complaint occurred there).

15

Plaintiff is a Hongkong corporation whose U.S. affiliate is

16

not a named party in the dispute.

Therefore, Plaintiff does not

17

reside in the forum district and Plaintiff’s choice of forum should

18

be granted somewhat diminished deference.

19

In determining the weight of the deference to be given to

20

plaintiff's choice of forum, “consideration must be given to the

21

extent both of the defendant's business contacts with the chosen

22

forum and of the plaintiff's contacts, including those relating to

23

[its] cause of action.”

24

949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968).

25
26

Here,

Defendant

Pac. Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d

has

District of California.

business

contacts

with

the

Eastern

Although the Defendant has no physical
9

1

office, bank accounts, employees, or real estate within the Eastern

2

District, it does market its products to consumers within this

3

district.

4

Plaintiff asserts that its only arguable connection to the

5

United States exists through its affiliate and largest customer,

6

Meyer Corporation, U.S., which is headquartered in Vallejo, Solano

7

County, California.

8

involved in this dispute, witnesses, and documents related to the

9

cause of action, are located in Solano County as well.

Plaintiff also contends that an attorney

10

The court determines that, because of Plaintiff’s contacts to

11

the Eastern District of California related to Meyer’s cause of

12

action, Plaintiff’s choice of forum will be given deference in

13

analyzing the motion to transfer.

14

Plaintiff further argues that Defendant’s motion to transfer

15

should be denied because the District of New Jersey would not have

16

personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff.

17

persuasive.

18

throughout the world, and through various channels, including

19

through major television and online retailers. It stands to reason

20

that

21

District of New Jersey, constituting sufficient contacts with the

22

district to grant the District of New Jersey personal jurisdiction

23

over Plaintiff if a trademark infringement action were initiated

24

against Plaintiff in that district.

25

as

26

personal jurisdiction within the District of New Jersey, Meyer’s

a

Plaintiff has asserted that it sells its cookware

Plaintiff

foreign

This argument is not

has,

therefore,

manufacturing

sold

its

within

the

Furthermore, even if Meyer,

corporation,

10

cookware

were

not

subject

to

1

U.S.

affiliate,

MUS,

would

likely

be

subject

to

personal

2

jurisdiction within that district based on sales therein.

3

Defendants were to bring a trademark infringement action against

4

MUS in the District of New Jersey, Meyer would either abandon MUS,

5

its largest customer and U.S. affiliate, or Meyer would defend MUS

6

in the suit, thereby consenting to personal jurisdiction in that

7

district.

If

8

Thus, although Plaintiff’s choice of forum will be granted

9

deference in analyzing the motion to transfer, Plaintiff’s argument

10

that, of the two fora, only the Eastern District of California

11

would have personal jurisdiction over both parties in this action

12

fails.

13

iii. Parties’ Contacts with the Forum

14

As stated above, Defendant has contacts with the Eastern

15

District of California because it markets its products to consumers

16

within this district.

17

Also as stated above, Plaintiff has contacts with the Eastern

18

District

19

Corporation, U.S., and through the presence of an attorney involved

20

in this dispute, witnesses, and documents related to the cause of

21

action, within the Eastern District of California.

22
23
24
25
26

of

California

through

its

U.S.

affiliate,

Meyer

Because both parties have contacts with the Eastern District
of California, consideration of this factor aids neither party.
iv.

Contacts Relating to Plaintiff’s Cause of Action with the

Eastern District of California
Defendant has marketed its product, for which it claims a
11

1

trademark, within the Eastern District of California.

2

has also indicated that it is willing to enforce its trademark

3

against Plaintiff, whose major U.S. affiliate is located in the

4

Eastern District.

5

employees, bank accounts, or real estate in the district.

6

Defendant

As stated above, Defendants have no office,

Plaintiff claims to have an attorney related to the cause of

7

action, documents, and witnesses, located within this district.

8

Plaintiff also sells its cookware at issue throughout the world,

9

including within the Eastern District of California.

O

n

10

balance, the court determines that this factor weighs in favor of

11

denying Defendant’s motion to transfer because there are contacts

12

relating to Plaintiff’s cause of action within the Eastern District

13

of California.

14

v. Location where the Relevant Agreements were Negotiated and

15

Executed

16

Defendant contends, and Plaintiff does not dispute, that its

17

October 28, 2011 cease and desist letter, was sent by counsel for

18

Telebrands, located in New York, NY, to the President and CEO of

19

QVC, Inc., which is headquartered in West Chester, Pennsylvania.

20

The attorney for Meyer who contacted Telebrands via phone and

21

letter (and who appears to be lead counsel in the action presently

22

before the court), is located in Chicago, Illinois.

23

at issue is a matter of public record and the particular location

24

of its registration is not pertinent to either of the parties

25

choice of venue.

26

The trademark

Because the communications between counsel have relevance to
12

1

the suit, and none of those communications involved in the Eastern

2

District of California, this factor weighs in favor of granting

3

Defendant’s motion to transfer.

4
5

vi.

The State Most Familiar with the Governing Law

This action arises under federal law, specifically, the Lanham

6

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1501, et seq.

As such, both the Eastern District

7

of California and the District of New Jersey are likely equally

8

familiar with the federal law at issue, and consideration of this

9

factor aids neither party.

10

vii. The Differences in the Cost of Litigation in the Two Forums

11

Here, both parties have make reasonable arguments that they

12

will incur substantial costs if not allowed to litigate this action

13

in their forum of choice.

14

structure, will suffer losses when key employees are taken away

15

from their regular responsibilities for the purpose of litigation.

16

Defendants will also likely incur significant costs in litigating

17

in this district because its base of company operations, witnesses,

18

and documents are located on the eastern coast.

19

Plaintiffs,

on

the

Defendants, having a lean corporate

other

hand,

will

similarly

incur

20

significant costs in litigating the action in New Jersey because

21

its witnesses, documents, and base of operations are either in

22

California or in Hongkong, and the travel from Hongkong to New

23

Jersey would likely be more costly and cumbersome than the travel

24

from Hongkong to California.

25

As to court costs, it is unknown what the differences in costs

26

of litigation would be between the Eastern District of California
13

1

or the District of New Jersey.

2

Eastern District of California appears to have a more congested

3

docket than the District of New Jersey.

4

Eastern District had 6840 civil cases pending, with 12 district

5

judges, both senior and active, while the District of New Jersey

6

had 5911 civil cases pending, with 24 district judges, both senior

7

and active.1

8
9

In terms of court congestion, the

As of March 2011, the

This factor, therefore, weighs in favor of transferring the
action to the District of New Jersey.

10

viii.

The

Availability

of

Compulsory

11

Process

to

Compel

Attendance of Unwilling Party Witnesses

12

Convenience of the witnesses is one of the most important

13

factors in determining whether to grant a motion to transfer. See,

14

e.g., Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football

15

League, 89 F.R.D. 497, 501 (C.D.Cal. 1981).

16

to

17

identities,

locations,

18

testimony.

See Florens Container v. Cho Yang Shipping, 245

19

F.Supp.2d 1086, 1092-93 (N.D.Cal. 2002).

witnesses,

the

moving
and

party

should

content

and

To show inconvenience
state

the

relevance

witnesses'
of

their

20

Defendant has stated that its witnesses include Telebrands’

21

employees, who are all located in or around New Jersey, and

22

employees of QVC, who are “likely based” in Pennsylvania, where QVC

23

is headquartered.

Defendant has not made clear, however, how the

24
1

25
26

See U.S. District Courts, Caseload Statistics 2011, Table C,
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
at http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/
FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2011/tables/C00Mar11.pdf.
14

1

testimony of QVC witnesses will be relevant to the trademark

2

infringement claim at issue in this suit.

3

West Chester, Pennsylvania, is outside the 100-mile subpoena power

4

of the District of New Jersey. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(b)(2)(B).2

5

Without further evidence of where the employees of QVC are actually

6

based, or where the Defendant would seek to have the deposition,

7

production, or inspection, the court is unable to determine whether

8

the employees of QVC would, in fact, be subject to compulsory

9

process in the District of New Jersey.

Plaintiff argues that

Suffice it to say,

10

Defendant’s witnesses are primarily on the eastern coast of the

11

United States and, assuming the relevance of their testimony, those

12

witnesses would be inconvenienced by being required to travel to

13

California.

14

Plaintiff has stated that its witnesses include its attorney

15

and other employees in its U.S. affiliate, located in California,

16

as well as employees in Hongkong, who would be less inconvenienced

17

traveling to California than they would by traveling to New Jersey.

18

On balance, the court determines that either party’s intended

19

witnesses would be inconvenienced by the other party’s choice of

20

forum and, therefore, the inconvenience is equally divided between

21

the parties.

22
23

ix.

The Ease of Access to Sources of Proof

Telebrand argues that all of their documents are records are

24
2

25
26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(2)(B) provides that
a subpoena may be served at any place “outside [the district of the
issuing court] but within a hundred miles of the place specified
for the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection.”
15

1

located in New Jersey.

Similarly, Meyers argues that the only

2

discoverable documents in the U.S. that relate to Meyer’s Earthpan

3

products are housed with their U.S. affiliate in Solano County.

4

However, the court is persuaded by Meyer’s argument that,

5

because no immobile physical evidence in involved in this case,

6

venue will have little impact on access to sources of proof.

7

On balance, the court determines that both parties will be

8

similarly inconvenienced if not allowed to litigate in their choice

9

of venue.

10

Because Plaintiff’s choice of forum is given deference in this

11

case, and because Defendant has not shown that the balance of

12

convenience clearly favors transfer, Defendant’s motion to transfer

13

venue

14

transferring the action to the District of New Jersey would merely

15

shift the inconvenience from Defendant to Plaintiff, which does not

16

favor transfer.

17

F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).

18

B. Motion to Extend the Time to Answer the Complaint

is

DENIED.

On

the

whole,

the

court

determines

that

Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805

19

Defendant’s answer was due on January 23, 2012. Defendant did

20

not file its answer on that date but, instead, filed the motion to

21

transfer presently before the court.

22

motion for an extension of time to file an answer until February

23

14, 2012.

Defendant did not file its

24

According to the Eastern District of California’s Local Rule

25

144(d), “Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from

26

the Court . . . as soon as the need for an extension becomes
16

1

apparent.

Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on the

2

required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked

3

upon with disfavor.”

L.R. 144(d).

4

Here, Defendant should have sought an extension of time to

5

answer the complaint as soon as it decided to file a motion to

6

transfer venue, and not, as it did, close to three weeks later

7

after Defendant’s answer was due.

8

Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file an answer.

9

Defendant SHALL file its answer within five (5) days of the

10

The court therefore DENIES

issuance of this order.

11

IV. CONCLUSION

12

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to transfer, ECF No. 15, is

13

DENIED; Defendant’s motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 21,

14

is

15

complaint within five (5) days of the issuance of this order.

DENIED.

Defendant

16

DATED:

file

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

SHALL

April 6, 2012.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
17

its

answer

to

Plaintiff’s