CAMOFI MASTER LDC et al v. Associated Third Party Administrators et al
Filing
24
ORDER Granting 22 Defendants' Request for an Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/19/2016. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
CAMOFI MASTER LDC, et al.,
7
Case No. 16-cv-00855-EMC
Plaintiffs,
8
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF
TIME
v.
9
10
ASSOCIATED THIRD PARTY
ADMINISTRATORS, et al.,
11
Docket No. 22
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
Defendants.
12
Defendant Jesse M. Kessler has filed a request for an extension of time to respond to
13
14
Plaintiffs’ complaint. Mr. Kessler has filed the request on his own behalf as well as on the behalf
15
of an affiliated entity, Defendant Med-Tech Health Solutions, LLC.1 Mr. Kessler has not
16
identified how long of an extension he seeks. He simply states that an extension is needed in order
17
to hire an attorney to represent him and Med-Tech.
Plaintiffs have opposed the request. Plaintiffs note that Defendants seem to have mailed
18
19
their request for an extension before Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.2 According to
20
Plaintiffs, because of the filing of the amended complaint, Defendants will have even more time to
21
file a response – especially because Plaintiffs have not even served their amended complaint on
22
Defendants as of yet. Plaintiffs ask that, at most, the Court give Defendants 21 days after service
23
of the amended complaint to file a response, or 21 days after entry of the Court’s order granting an
24
1
25
26
27
As Mr. Kessler does not appear to be an attorney, he technically cannot make a request on behalf
of Med-Tech. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) (providing that “[a] corporation, unincorporated association,
partnership or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court”).
However, as Mr. Kessler is only making the request in order for Med-Tech (and himself) to get
counsel, the Court shall consider the request.
2
28
Mr. Kessler’s request is dated March 31, 2016; Plaintiffs’ amended complaint was filed on April
4, 2016.
1
2
extension (whichever is later).
The Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ request for an extension. Plaintiffs have not
3
demonstrated that an extension would cause them any prejudice. As Plaintiffs have not identified
4
a date certain by which the amended complaint shall be served on Defendants, the Court orders as
5
follows.
6
Plaintiffs shall serve the amended complaint on Defendants within three weeks of the date
7
of this order. Defendants shall then have six weeks after service of the amended complaint to
8
make an appearance in this case and respond to the amended complaint. Mr. Kessler is advised
9
that, while he may appear in the case pro se, Med-Tech may not. See note 1, supra. If an attorney
does not make an appearance on Med-Tech’s behalf, then there is a risk that a default may be
11
entered against it.
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
The Court orders Plaintiffs to immediately serve a copy of this order on Defendants. If
13
Plaintiffs have an e-mail address for Mr. Kessler, then it should also serve a copy of this order by
14
e-mail as a courtesy.
15
This order disposes of Docket No. 22.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
21
Dated: April 19, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?