Pecover et al v. Electronic Arts Inc.

Filing 444

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR RESPONSE BRIEF OF OBJECTOR THEODORE H. FRANK. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/25/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2013)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 GEOFFREY PECOVER and ANDREW OWENS, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, 6 v. ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR RESPONSE BRIEF OF OBJECTOR THEODORE H. FRANK Plaintiffs, 7 8 No. C 08-2820 CW Defendant. ________________________________/ 11 On February 7, 2013, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ 12 motions for final approval of a class action settlement and for 13 attorneys’ fees. 14 ruling on the motion for final approval of the class action 15 settlement to allow the parties to respond to its concerns 16 regarding the allocation of the settlement fund. 17 that counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant were to file their 18 supplemental brief within two weeks thereafter or, if they wished 19 to await the passing of the claims submission deadline, at a later 20 date. 21 Frank was to file his response two days after Plaintiffs and 22 Defendant filed their brief. 23 Docket No. 441. At that time, the Court delayed The Court stated The Court stated that counsel for Objector Theodore H. On February 21, 2013, Plaintiffs and Defendant filed a joint 24 notice, stating that they would wait until after the current claim 25 submission deadline had passed to submit their supplemental brief. 26 Docket No. 442. 27 on March 19, 2013. 28 Frank’s response was due March 21, 2013. They represented that they would file their brief Thus, because of the Court’s prior order, 1 On February 22, 2013, Frank filed a response to the joint 2 notice, objecting to what he characterizes as a “proposed response 3 time” of two days for his response to their supplemental brief. 4 Docket No. 443. 5 “could be submitted on the evening of March 19, Frank’s counsel 6 will in effect have only one day (March 20) to prepare his 7 response” and that it will be difficult to complete his submission 8 in one day. 9 He argues that, because their supplemental brief Id. at 2. Frank’s objections are not well-taken. Plaintiffs and United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Defendant did not “propose” a two-day time period for Frank’s 11 response. 12 2013 hearing. 13 have two days, not one, to prepare his response; just as 14 Plaintiffs and Defendant may electronically file their 15 supplemental brief on the evening of March 19, 2013, Frank’s 16 counsel may also electronically file his response on the evening 17 of March 21, 2013. 18 electronic transmissions of documents must be completed . . . 19 prior to midnight in order to be considered timely filed that 20 day.”). The Court already set that deadline at the February 7, Further, under that schedule, Frank’s counsel will See Civil Local Rule 5-1(e)(4) (“All 21 Nevertheless, because Frank represents that his counsel has a 22 prior commitment on March 20, 2013, the Court extends the deadline 23 for his response brief until Friday, March 22, 2013. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 27 Dated: 2/25/2013 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 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?