Fernandez v. Leidos, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 16 Ex Parte Application for extension of time signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/5/14: (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

MARTIN FERNANDEZ, on Behalf
of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12

No.

2:14-cv-02247-GEB-KJN

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND
TO COMPLAINT

v.
LEIDOS, INC.; and SCIENCE
APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL,
INC.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

On October 23, 2014, Defendant Leidos, Inc. (“Leidos”)

16

filed a Supplemental Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time

17

to File Response to Complaint under Local Rule 144(c), in which

18

it

19

Complaint . . . 28 days following the final determination by the

20

[Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation] of Leidos’s motion to

21

transfer this action.” (Supp. Ex Parte Appl. 2:9-11, ECF No. 16.)

22

Leidos states as follows in support of its request:

23
24
25
26
27
28

requests

an

order

permitting

“Leidos

to

respond

Yesterday, the Joint Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) issued an Order putting
this case on its hearing calendar for
December 4, 2014, and stating that the JPML
will at that time consider whether “to reopen
MDL No. 2360 and to transfer th[is] action to
the United States District Court for the
District
of
Columbia.”
On
this
basis,
Defendant Leidos, Inc. respectfully submits
the following supplemental brief in support
of its ex parte application for an extension
1

to

the

1

of time to respond to the Class Action
Complaint (“Complaint”). Leidos is mindful of
this Court’s amended order, but believes the
Court would want to be apprised of this
development.

2
3
4

Leidos’s
response
to
the
Complaint
currently is due on November 17, 2014. As the
JPML will consider whether to transfer this
case during its December 4, 2014 calendar,
and will issue its decision thereafter,
Leidos believes that judicial efficiency
would best be served by permitting the JPML
to determine the proper venue for this case
prior to the filing and briefing of a motion
to dismiss in this Court. Leidos therefore
respectfully requests . . . [the referenced]
extension order . . . .

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

(Id. at 1:25-2:11.)

12

Leidos’s extension request is granted. The time for all

13

Defendants to respond to the Complaint is extended until 28 days

14

following a final determination by the JPML on whether to reopen

15

MDL

16

District Court for the District of the District of Columbia.

17

Dated:

No.

2360

and

transfer

this

November 5, 2014

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

action

to

the

United

States