Coupons, Inc. v. Stottlemire

Filing 114

Opposition in Part to Administrative Motion to Extend Time to Answer the Third Amended Complaint re #108 filed by Coupons, Inc. (Goteiner, Neil) (Filed on 11/24/2008) Text modified on 11/25/2008 (bw, COURT STAFF).

Coupons, Inc. v. Stottlemire

Doc. 114

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP 235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 [phone]

Neil A. Goteiner (State Bar No. 083524) Dennis M. Cusack (State Bar No. 124988) Carly O. Alameda (State Bar No. 244424) Farella Braun & Martel LLP 235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff COUPONS, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION COUPONS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. JOHN STOTTLEMIRE, and DOES 1-10, Defendants. Case No. 5:07-CV-03457 HRL COUPONS' OPPOSITION IN PART TO DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Judge: Honorable Howard R. Lloyd

Plaintiff Coupons, Inc. continues to attempt to be reasonable in its accommodation of Defendant Stottlemire's repeated requests for long continuances. Stottlemire's pending request for a continuance of his time to answer the Third Amended Complaint to January 31, 2009 is not reasonable. Coupons believes a continuance until December 15, 2008 is reasonable and that it takes into account the ten days lost to the aborted settlement effort. I. ARGUMENT Coupons filed its Third Amended Complaint on July 22, 2008, and the Court denied Stottlemire's motion to dismiss on November 6. Under the rules, Stottlemire's answer was due November 21. Stottlemire moved to extend his time to answer the complaint to January 31, 2009. The parties then apparently settled on November 13, so that Coupons did not previously file this opposition to Stottlemire's Motion. However, as explained in the cover letter accompanying this

COUPONS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -- USDC/NDC/SJ 5:07-CV-03457 HRL

-1-

22675\1763189.1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP 235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 [phone]

opposition, Stottlemire breached the material terms of the settlement, requiring Coupons to proceed with the case. Given that ten days were lost to the settlement process, Stottlemire should be given ten additional days beyond the time to answer previously stipulated to by Coupons (December 5) and Stottlemire's answer should be due on December 15. The Complaint was filed 16 months ago. Stottlemire has filed three motions to dismiss Coupons' complaints and the parties have extensively briefed both factual and legal issues involved with all of the causes of action -- the DMCA claims as well as the California state law claims. There are no longer any mysteries; Stottlemire has had 16 months to come to grips with the allegations and determine whether to admit or deny them. Moreover, he can amend his answer as discovery proceeds, and we presume that leave to amend will be liberally allowed, as it has with the Complaint. Given this history, it is unreasonable for Stottlemire to demand two and one-half months to write an answer, even with his move out of state. Stottlemire's status as a pro se litigant is no license for abandoning the parties' and the Court's interests in moving the litigation forward. Stottlemire is not unsophisticated, and has proven his understanding of the facts and issues in this case throughout his briefing and oral arguments. He also has demonstrated his ability to maneuver in the litigation process and file a variety of motions. (Indeed, he has demonstrated access to legal assistance in strategizing and mobilizing counsel to assist him.) Here, for example, Coupons' counsel informed Stottlemire on Monday evening, November 10 of Coupons' willingness to stipulate to a two week extension. Stottlemire chose not to work on the answer, but to instead draft and file this motion to extend time and the accompanying detailed declaration in support of the motion by the morning of Wednesday, November 12. Certainly Stottlemire can draft and file an answer to the Third Amended Complaint, with which he is quite familiar, within the next month. Indeed, he has dealt easily in a factual manner with the allegations of the complaint and knows what he can deny or admit. On top of that he already knows that he wants to file

COUPONS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -- USDC/NDC/SJ 5:07-CV-03457 HRL

-2-

22675\1763189.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP 235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 [phone]

counterclaims. This particular litigant has more than enough time and energy to draft his answer with the extension Coupons agreed to. Finally, Coupons and its counsel are sympathetic to the fact that expected and unexpected obstacles arise in people's personal lives. However, if litigation deadlines were entirely dependent on people's schedules being free from competing time demands, the system would come to a halt. In conclusion, December 15 is enough time for Stottlemire to answer the Third Amended Complaint and to file any counterclaims.

Dated: November 24, 2008

FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP

By: _________/s/ Neil A. Goteiner________ Neil A. Goteiner Attorneys for Plaintiff COUPONS, INC.

COUPONS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -- USDC/NDC/SJ 5:07-CV-03457 HRL

-3-

22675\1763189.1