Pikamab, Inc. v. University of Alabama, Birmingham et al

Filing 24

ORDER VACATING MOTION HEARING ON 17 18 MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND SETTING HEARING ON 22 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL. Motion hearings on the motions to dismiss VACATED pending further order of the Court. The Court HEREBY ORDERS the parties an d one of the plaintiff's representatives to appear on 8/26/2016 at 9:00 a.m. as previously scheduled to address the status of Plaintiff's efforts to obtain new counsel. The Court will re-set the briefing schedule at that time, but it place s plaintiff on notice that, absent extraordinarily good cause, it will not grant an extension of more than 45 days from the date of this Order to respond to the motions. Motion Hearing set for 8/26/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 8/8/2016. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PIKAMAB, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10
11

Case No. 16-cv-02370-JSW

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA,
BIRMINGHAM, et al.,

ORDER VACATING MOTION
HEARING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
AND SETTING HEARING ON MOTION
TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 18, 22

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On April 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendants. On July 13, 2016,

14

Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which are set for a hearing on August 26, 2016. For the

15

reasons set forth in this Order, the hearing on those motions is VACATED pending further order

16

of the Court. The parties are HEREBY ORDERED to appear on that date and time for the Court

17

to consider the motion to withdraw and the request for an extension of time to respond to the

18

motions to dismiss.
Pursuant to the Northern District Civil Local Rules an opposition to a motion “must be

19
20

filed and served not more than 14 days after the motion was filed.” N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a).

21

Pursuant to that Rule, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) “does not apply and thus does not

22

extend this deadline.” Id. Thus, under the Local Rules, Plaintiff’s opposition briefs were due on

23

July 27, 2016, not August 5, 2016. It appears that Defendants docketed an incorrect response date.

24

However, on August 5, 2016, instead of filing opposition briefs, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion

25

to withdraw. Defendants have not opposed that motion. Plaintiff has also moved for an extension

26

of time to respond to the motions to dismiss. Although Defendants agreed to an extension of

27

fourteen days, Plaintiff’s counsel has represented that Plaintiff now seeks an extension of six

28

weeks.

1

gh
t
t
d
ant
on
raw
Althoug the Court is inclined to find good cause to gra the motio to withdr and to

2

per
rmit a reason
nable extensi of time to respond to the motion Plaintiff i a corporati
ion
t
o
ns,
is
ion, and “a

3

cor
rporation ma appear in the federal courts only t
ay
c
through licen
nsed counsel See Row
l.”
wland v.

4

Ca
alifornia Men Colony, 506 U.S. 194 202 (1993 see also N
n’s
5
4,
3);
Northern Dis
strict Civil L
Local Rule 3-

5

9(b Because the Court ha no inform
b).
as
mation about Plaintiff’s e
efforts to reta new coun
ain
nsel, it

6

HE
EREBY ORD
DERS the pa
arties and on of Plaintif represen
ne
ff’s
ntatives to ap
ppear on Aug 26,
gust

7

201 at 9:00 a.m. as previo
16
ously schedu to addre the status of Plaintiff efforts to obtain new
uled
ess
s
f’s

8

cou
unsel. The Court will re
C
e-set the briefing schedul at that tim but it plac plaintiff on notice
le
me,
ces
f

9

tha absent ext
at,
traordinarily good cause, it will not g
y
grant an exte
ension of mo than 45 d
ore
days from

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

the date of this Order to res
e
spond to the motions.
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: August 8, 2016
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2