Sorensen v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER Granting Defendants' Ex Parte 11 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Lowe's Companies, Inc. answer due 3/23/2009; Lowe's HIW, Inc. answer due 3/23/2009; L G Sourcing, Inc. answer due 3/23/2009. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 3/6/09. (vet) (jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JENS ERIK SORENSON, vs. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 09cv59 BTM (CAB) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., et al., Defendant.

On January 14, 2009, Plaintiff Sorenson filed a Complaint against Defendants Lowe's Companies, Inc., LG Sourcing, Inc. and Does 1-100. On February 17, 2009, Defendants filed an Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. On February 18, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff also filed a "Notice of Mootness," arguing that the Amended Complaint mooted Defendants' request for an extension of time. In its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff added Lowe's HWI, Inc., as a Defendant. On February 19, 2009, Defendants filed a Supplemental Motion to their Ex Parte Motion. Defendants contended that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint did not moot their original request for an extension of time, since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would still require them to respond prior to March 23, 2009, the date requested in their Ex Parte Motion. The Court may extend time for good cause upon party request before the original time to respond expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Defendants request an extension of time here

1

09cv59 BTM (CAB)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to conduct additional investigation and evaluate settlement opportunities. Defendants argue that allowing them additional time will conserve judicial resources. Defendants also claim that because the `184 patent has expired and the current action seeks solely damages, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the extension. The Court finds good cause to grant Defendants' request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendants have asked the Court for a reasonable period of time to determine through further investigation the proper response to Plaintiff's Complaint. Given the current stay of many of the cases related to this matter, Plaintiff should not suffer prejudice as a result of the reasonable extension Defendants request. The Court thereby GRANTS Defendants' Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court further ORDERS Defendants to file and serve upon Plaintiff their response on or before Monday, March 23, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 6, 2009

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge

2

09cv59 BTM (CAB)