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