Lalo v. Apple, Inc et al

Filing 109

ORDER Granting 93 Defendant Apple's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Consolidated Complaint. Signed by Judge Koh on 5/19/2011. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

IN RE IPHONE APPLICATION LITIG.

13
14
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-05878-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
APPLE’S MOTION TO ENLARGE
TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
(re: dkt. #93)

Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) moves to enlarge time to respond to the Consolidated

17

Complaint until June 13, 2011, apparently the response deadline for other newly named

18

Defendants. See Dkt. #93. Currently, under the Court’s March 15, 2011 Consolidation Order [dkt.

19

#36], Apple’s response is due by May 23, 2011. Apple submits that it would be inefficient and

20

burdensome to submit its response to the Consolidated Complaint two days prior to the May 25,

21

2011 motion hearing regarding Apple’s separate motion to stay proceedings pending action by the

22

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Plaintiffs oppose, arguing that they filed their

23

Consolidated Complaint on an expedited basis, and Apple agreed to file its response on the

24

timeline currently set.

25

Although sympathetic to Plaintiffs’ position of having filed the Consolidated Complaint on

26

an expedited basis, the Court discerns no substantial harm or prejudice in allowing Apple to file its

27

response by June 13, 2011, the same response date for other Defendants in this action. See Civ.

28

L.R. 6-3(a). Moreover, the Court would benefit from aligning Apple’s time to respond with the
1
Case No.: 10-CV-05878-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO RESPOND

1

other Defendants. For example, if, as anticipated, Defendants file motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs

2

would then have to file oppositions on the same day, instead of filing scattered oppositions on

3

different days. In addition, the Court could schedule a hearing on the motions on the same day and

4

in a single hearing. In sum, allowing Apple a brief extension of time to respond will facilitate

5

effective and efficient case management.

6

Accordingly, Apple’s motion to enlarge time to respond to complaint is GRANTED. Apple

7

must file its response to the Consolidated Complaint on or before June 13, 2011. The parties

8

should note that this Order has no bearing on Apple’s motion to stay, which will be discussed at the

9

May 25, 2011 motion hearing and case management conference.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: May 19, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 10-CV-05878-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO RESPOND