TRINDADE v. Reach Media Group LLC
Filing
67
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO AMEND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AND SERVE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT by Judge Paul S. Grewal, granting 65 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 8/14/2013. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
JOSHUA M. BRIONES (Bar No. 205293)
joshua. briones@dlapiper .com
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 North Tower
Los Angeles, California 90067-4704
Tel: 310-595-3000
Fax: 310-595-3300
ALBERT E. HARTMANN (pro hac vice pending)
albert.hartmann@dlapiper.com
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
203 North LaSalle Street, Ste 1900
Chicago, IL 60601-1293
Tel: 312-368-4000
Fax: 312-236-7516
ERIN J. ILLMAN (Bar No. 236282)
VISHALI SINGAL (Bar No. 267481)
vishali.singal@dlapiper. com
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Tel: 415.836.2500
Fax: 415.836.2501
Attorneys for Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff
REACH MEDIA GROUP, LLC
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN JOSE DIVISION
14
15
DAVID TRINDADE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
17
18
CLASS ACTION
Plaintiff,
16
v.
REACH MEDIA GROUP, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
19
[Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b)(1)(A)]
21
REACH MEDIA GROUP, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
22
Third-Party Plaintiff,
24
25
26
UNOPPOSED MOTION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME
TO AMEND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
AND SERVE THIRD-PARTY
DEFENDANT EAGLE WEB ASSETS INC.
Defendant.
20
23
CASE NO 5:12-CV-04759 (PSG)
Judge: Honorable Paul Singh Grewal
Department: Courtroom 5
Complaint Filed: Sept. 12, 2012
Third-Party Complaint Filed: Nov. 15, 2012
v.
RYAN LENAHAN, individually, KYLE
DANNA, individually, and EAGLE WEB
ASSETS INC., a corporation,
Third-Party Defendants.
27
28
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
SAN FRANCISCO
UNOPPOSED MOTION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-04759 (PSG)
1
Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Reach Media Group, LLC ("RMG"), by and through
2
its undersigned attorneys, respectfully requests that this Court extend (1) the 14-day deadline set
3
in this Court's July 31,2013 Order Denying Third-Party Defendants' Motion to Strike and
4
Granting-in-Part Motion to Dismiss ("Motion to Dismiss Order") to file any amended Third-Party
5
Complaint and (2) the 14-day deadline set in this Court's February 7, 2013 Order to Extend Time
6
for Service of any amended Third-Party Complaint on Third-Party Defendant Eagle Web Assets
7
Inc. ("EWA") following entry of the July 31, 2013 Motion to Dismiss Order. Plaintiff David
8
Trindade ("Plaintiff'), and Third-Party Defendants Ryan Lenahan ("Lenahan") and Kyle Danna
9
("Danna") (collectively, the "Parties"), do not oppose this motion. (See Declaration ofVishali
10
Singal, Esq. in Support of Motion to Extend Time to Amend Third-Party Complaint and Serve
11
Third-Party Defendant Eagle Web Assets Inc. ("Singal DecI."),
12
I.
~
13.)
Relevant Statement of Facts
13
a.
14
RMG filed a Third-Party Complaint in this matter on November 15, 2012 against Third-
Procedural Facts
15
Party Defendants Ryan Lenahan, Kyle Danna, and EW A. (Dkt. #22.) RMG completed timely
16
service of process on Lenahan and Danna but encountered difficulty serving EW A with the
17
Third-Party Complaint. (Singal Decl., ~ 2.)
18
During the Initial Case Management Conference ("CMC") in this matter on January 8,
19
2013, counsel appearing on behalf ofRMG, Vishali Singal, Esq., informed this Court that as of
20
January 8, 2013, RMG had encountered difficulty serving EWA with the Third-Party Complaint.
21
(Singal Decl.,
22
additional month to effectuate service on EWA ofthe Third-Party Complaint. (Singal Decl.,
23
Subsequently, during the CMC, this Court set a 30-day deadline for RMG to serve EWA with the
24
Third-Party Complaint, reflected in the Civil Minute Order of the same date. (Dkt. #37.) That
25
deadline corresponded with the date February 7, 2013.
~
3.) Ms. Singal further informed this Court that RMG likely required an
~
3.)
26
On or about January 10, 2013, Ms. Singal instructed Keith Nesbit, legal assistant at DLA
27
Piper LLP (US), to research addresses to serve process on EWA's Vice President of Accounting
28
or Vice President of Human Resources and onc~~~entified, to authorize a process server to
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
SAN FRANCISCO
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-04759 (PSG)
1
attempt service at the identified address(es). (Singal Decl., ,-r 4.) Ms. Singallearned on or about
2
January 10, 2013 that Mr. Nesbit located an address online that appeared to be associated with
3
Savy Lam, identified on EW A's website on January 10, 2013 as Vice President of Accounting.
4
(Singal Decl., ,-r 4, Dkt. #53-2.) As a result, Ms. Singal instructed Mr. Nesbit to authorize a
5
process server to attempt service of the Third-Party Complaint at that address. (Singal Decl., ,-r 4.)
6
One day later, on Friday, January 11, 2013, RMG was electronically served through this
7
Court's Electronic Case Filing system with Third-Party Defendants Lehanan's and Danna's
8
Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike And/Or Dismiss Third-Party Complaint and Memorandum
9
of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof ("Motion"). (Dkt. #38.) The Notice of Motion to
10
Strike And/Or Dismiss Third-Party Complaint ("Notice of Motion") specified a hearing date of
11
February 26, 2013. (Dkt. #38.)
12
Subsequently, on or about January 16, 2013, Ms. Singal learned that the process server
13
had unsuccessfully attempted service ofthe Third-Party Complaint on January 14, 2013 at the
14
address associated with Ms. Lam. (Singal Decl., ,-r 7.) In the meantime, RMG's counsel had
15
reviewed the Motion, and in light of its content, shifted their focus to preparing an opposition
16
brief to the Motion and considering the implications ofthe Motion on allegations and counts
17
stated in the Third-Party Complaint as to EW A. (Singal Decl., ,-r 6.) On or about January 22,
18
2013, Ms. Singal instructed Mr. Nesbit to obtain a background report for Mr. Eagle, to identify
19
additional addresses at which to attempt service of the Third-Party Complaint on EWA, and on or
20
about January 24, 2013, Ms. Singal received that background report. (Singal Decl., ,-r 8.)
21
22
On January 25, 2013, this Court reset the February 26, 2013 hearing on the Motion to
March 12, 2013. (Dkt. #45.)
23
On or about February 5, 2013, the Parties stipulated to RMG's requested extension to
24
serve EWA with the Third-Party Complaint or an amended Third-Party Complaint of 14 days
25
from the date this Court issued its order on the Motion, or such other date and time thereafter as
26
the Court ordered, on the grounds that because the Third-Party Complaint asserts common
27
allegations and two causes of action against all three Third-Party Defendants, including EWA,
28
and that those allegations and causes of action ~~:e the subject of the Motion, RMG sought to
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
SAN FRANCISCO
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-04759 (PSG)
1
await the outcome of the Motion in determining how it affected the content of the Third-Party
2
Complaint as to EWA and the decision to proceed against EWA. (Singal Decl., ~ 9, Dkt. #53-1.)
3
On February 7, 2013, this Court entered an Order to Extend Time for Service of any
4
amended Third-Party Complaint on Third-Party Defendant EW A in this matter by 14 days
5
following the date this Court issued its order on the Motion ("Motion to Dismiss Order"). (Dkt. #
6
54.)
7
On March 12, 2013, this Court heard oral arguments on the Motion. (Dkt. #62.)
8
On July 31, 2013, this Court issued and entered the Motion to Dismiss Order, in which it
9
10
required that RMG file any amended Third-Party Complaint within 14 days of the date of the
Motion to Dismiss Order, which corresponds with the date August 14,2013. (Dkt. #64.)
Based on this Court's February 7, 2013 and July 31, 2013 orders, August 14, 2013 is the
11
12
deadline by which RMG must file any amended Third-Party Complaint and serve Third-Party
13
Defendant EWA with it ifEWA is still named as a Third-Party Defendant.
14
b.
15
At the present time, RMG is encountering severe financial difficulties. (Singal Decl., ~
16
12.) As a result ofRMG's weak financial condition, RMG is evaluating its available options to
17
address its financing and operating challenges. (Singal Decl., ~ 12.)
18
II.
RMG's Financial Condition
Argument
19
Under FRCP 6, where an act "may or must be done within a specified time, the court may,
20
for good cause, extend the time [] with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request
21
is made, before the original time or its extension expires." FRCP 6(b)(l)(A). Here, RMG
22
respectfully submits a request for a 30-day extension of time to both file an amended Third-Party
23
Complaint and serve EWA with the amended Third-Party Complaint, before the deadline set by
24
this Court of August 14, 2013 to do so.
25
RMG requests a 30-day extension of time on the grounds that it requires this period of
26
time to fully evaluate its available options to address its financing and operating challenges. This
27
Court's resources, along with both existing and currently absent parties, will be conserved, which
28
otherwise might be expended on additional
mot~3~
practice in response to an amended Third-
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
SAN FRANCISCO
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
CASE NO.5: 12-CV-04759 (PSG)
1
Party Complaint. The conservation of judicial resources and costs on the parties involved is good
2
cause for granting this request.
Accordingly RMG respectfully requests through this motion that this Court extend the
3
4
deadline by which it must amend and serve the Third-Party Complaint to 30 days from August
5
14, 2013. The parties appearing in this action will not be prejudiced by this extension of time.
6
Plaintiff already propounded discovery requests on RMG and RMG served responses and
7
objections to these requests. (Singal Decl., ~~ 5, 10.) Further, this Court ruled on the two pre-
8
answer motions filed by Third-Party Defendants Lanahan and Danna, one jointly and the other
9
only by Lenahan, on July 31, 2013, and given that RMG has not yet propounded discovery on
10
either of them, Third-Party Defendants Lenahan and Danna currently have no discovery
11
obligations. (Singal Decl., ~ 11; Dkt. #64.) Further, no trial schedule (or scheduling order) has
12
yet been issued for this case. Accordingly, this requested extension of time, the sixth extension of
13
time in this matter and the fourth request to this Court for an extension of time by RMG (Singal
14
Decl., ~ 14), would have no impact on any such schedule.
15
III.
16
Conclusion
For all these reasons, RMG respectfully requests that this Court grant Defendant and
17
Third-Party PlaintiffRMG's motion to extend time for amending the Third-Party Complaint and
18
serving EWA to 30 days following August 14, 2013.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Dated: August 13, 2013
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
By: /s/ Vishali Singal
ERIN JANE ILLMAN
VISHALI SINGAL
Attorneys for Defendant and Third-Party
Plaintiff
REACH MEDIA GROUP, LLC
25
26
27
28
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
SAN FRANCISCO
-4UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-04759 (PSG)
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
Good cause appearing therefore, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Reach Media Group,
3
LLC's deadline to amend its Third-Party Complaint and serve Third-Party Defendant Eagle Web
4
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Assets Inc. with the amended Third-Party Complaint is extended to _ _ days from August 14,
5
xxxxxx
2013.
September 13, 2013.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
August 14
DATED: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , 2013
10
11
12
By ____________________________
HONORABLE PAUL SINGH GREWAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DLA PiPER LLP (US)
SAN FRANCISCO
PROPOSED ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-04759 (PSG)
1
2
3
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Violet Rajkumar, declare:
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in San Francisco County, California. I
4
am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business
5
address is DLA Piper LLP (US), 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400, San Francisco, California
6
7
8
94105-2933. On August 13, 2013, I served a copy of the within document(s):
UNOPPOSED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO
AMEND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AND SERVE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT
EAGLE WEB ASSETS INC.
9
10
11
DECLARATION OF VISHALI SINGAL, ESQ., IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO AMEND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AND SERVE
THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT EAGLE WEB ASSETS INC
12
13
D
by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the
address( es) set forth below.
By electronic service. I caused the documents to be sent on February 15, 2011 to
the persons at the electronic notification addresses listed on the below Service List.
I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic
message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Benjamin H. Richman
Rafey S. Balabanian
Christopher L. Dore
Edelson McGuire LLC
350 North LaSalle Street,
Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60654
312 589-6370
Fax: 312 589-6378
brichman@edelson.com
rbalabanian@edelson. com
Sean Patrick Reis
Edelson McGuire, LLP
30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
949-459-2124
Fax: 949-459-2123
sreis@edelson. com
Karl S. Kronenberger
Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld
Virginia A. Sanderson
150 Post Street
Suite 520
San Francisco, CA 94108
karl@krintemetlaw.com
j eff@krintemetlaw.com
ginny@krintemetlaw.com
23
cdore~edelson.com
24
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose
direction the service was made.
25
26
27
28
DLA PiPER LLP (US)
SAN FRANCISCO
WEST\240669422.2
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?