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)

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