C.A.M. Social Development, LLC v. Thinkwell Group, Inc

Filing 6

ORDER GRANTING 5 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendant shall have until May 20, 2011 to respond to Plaintiff's complaint. Further, all parties who have not yet done so shall either consent or decline magistrate jurisdiction by April 25, 2011. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 4/19/2011. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2011)

1

** E-filed April 19, 2011 **

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

C.A.M. SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
THINKWELL GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

16

No. C11-01361 HRL
ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR
DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT AND NOTICE RE:
DEADLINE FOR CONSENT OR
DECLINATION TO PROCEED
BEFORE A UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
[Re: Docket No. 5]

____________________________________/
17
18

On April 14, 2011, Defendant filed what was styled an “Ex Parte Motion to Extend Time to

19

Respond to Complaint,” even though Plaintiff received e-notification of the motion when it was

20

electronically filed. See Docket No. 5 (notice was electronically mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel Mark

21

W. Good and Perry James Woodward). Defendant seeks administrative relief, namely, to allow it to

22

respond to Plaintiff’s complaint by May 20, 2011. Id.

23

Upon consideration of Defendant’s motion, and having received no opposition to it, this

24

Court finds good cause to extend the deadline for Defendant’s response. Defendant’s motion is

25

GRANTED. Defendant shall have until May 20, 2011 to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint.

26

Further, the parties are reminded that this civil case has been randomly assigned to a

27

magistrate judge for all purposes including trial. Accordingly, all parties who have not yet done so

28

shall, no later than April 25, 2011, file either (1) a Consent to Proceed before a United States

1

Magistrate Judge or (2) a Declination to Proceed before a Magistrate Judge and Request for

2

Reassignment to a United States District Judge. See N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 73-1. The consent and

3

declination forms are available at the Clerk’s Office and may also be obtained from the court’s

4

website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 19, 2011
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

C11-01361 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Clifford Scott Davidson
Mark W. Good
Perry James Woodward

3
4

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

5
6
7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3