Gomo et al v. NetApp, Inc.

Filing 18

ORDER RE #15 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS. Responses due by 7/10/2017. Replies due by 7/17/2017. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/26/2017.(blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 STEVEN GOMO, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, v. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 NETAPP, INC., et al., Defendants. 12 Case No. 17-cv-02990-BLF ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [Re: ECF 15] 13 Plaintiffs filed this action on May 24, 2017, asserting ERISA1 claims against their former 14 15 employer, NetApp, Inc., and the NetApp Executive Medical Retirement Plan. See Compl., ECF 1. 16 On June 15, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 12(b)(6) and noticed their motion for hearing on November 16, 2017. Plaintiffs’ 18 response to the motion is due on June 29, 2017. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) (opposition due not more 19 than fourteen days after motion is filed). 20 On June 21, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enlarge time for opposition pursuant to Civil 21 Local Rule 6-3. Pls.’ Motion, ECF 15. In that motion, Plaintiffs seek not only an enlargement of 22 time to respond to Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, but they also seek to convert Defendants’ 23 motion to a summary judgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Id. Plaintiffs 24 also request leave to conduct discovery before responding to the converted Rule 56 motion. Id. 25 Finally, Plaintiffs assert that in order to complete discovery prior to responding to Defendants’ 26 motion, they need an enlargement of time until October 2, 2017 to respond to Defendants’ motion. 27 28 1 Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. 1 Defendants have filed a timely opposition to the motion to enlarge time. Defs.’ Opp., ECF 2 16; see also Civ. L.R. 6-3(b) (opposition to motion to enlarge time due within four days after 3 receipt of motion). Defendants argue that their Rule 12(b)(6) motion should not be converted to a 4 Rule 56 motion and that the discovery requested by Plaintiffs therefore is unwarranted. Defs.’ 5 Opp., ECF 16. 6 The Court declines to convert Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion to a Rule 56 motion. 7 Accordingly, the lengthy enlargement of time requested by Plaintiffs is unnecessary. However, 8 the Court will grant Plaintiff fourteen days from the date of this order, until July 10, 2017, to file 9 an opposition to Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Dated: June 26, 2017 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?