Blaszkowski et al v. Mars Inc. et al

Filing 75

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Plead by Target Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Target's Agreed Motion for Extension)(Flick, Charles)

Download PDF
Blaszkowski et al v. Mars Inc. et al Doc. 75 Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2007 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO.: 07-21221 CIV-CMA RENEE BLASZKOWSKI, AMY HOLLUB, and PATRICIA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v MARS, INC., et al, Defendants. _____________ I AGREED MOTION OF DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT The Defendant, Target Corporation, pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with the consent of Plaintiffs, Renee Blaszkowski, Amy Hollub, and Patricia Davis, moves for an extension of time up to and including July 5, 2007, to serve its response to the Complaint. In support of its request, Defendant Target Corporation would show: 1. fraudulent On May 9, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a 58-page Complaint alleging misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, violations of Florida Statute 817.41, negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment against numerous defendants, including Target Corporation. 2. On or about May 15, 2007, Plaintiffs served the Complaint on Defendant Target Corporation. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2007 CASE NO.: 07-21221 CIV-CMA Page 2 of 5 3. The undersigned defense counsel requires additional time to prepare a response to the Complaint or otherwise plead. 4. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.A.3., counsel for Target Corporation and Plaintiffs have conferred and Plaintiffs have consented to extend the time in this case for Target Corporation to respond to the Complaint or otherwise plead, until July 5, 2007. Similar extensions have been granted to the other Defendants. 5. delay. WHEREFORE, Defendant Target Corporation respectfully requests the entry of an Order granting an extension of time up to and including July 5, 2007 to serve its response to the Complaint or to otherwise plead. Dated this 13th day of June, 2007. By: /s/ Charles P. Flick Charles P. Flick (FBN: 253324) cflick@sfklaw.com Kathleen S. Phang (FBN: 348650) kphang@sfklaw.com SEIPP, FLICK & KISSANE, LLP Two Alhambra Plaza, Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33134 Phone: 305/995-5600 Asst.: 305/995-6086 / Fax: 305/995-6100 Attorneys for Defendant, Target Corporation This Motion is made in good faith and not for any purpose of undue 2 Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2007 CASE NO.: 07-21221 CIV-CMA Page 3 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 13th day of June, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. /s/ Charles P. Flick By: Charles P. Flick (FBN: 253324) 3 Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2007 CASE NO.: 07-21221 CIV-CMA Page 4 of 5 SERVICE LIST U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) Case No: 07- 21221-CIV-CMA Catherine J. MacIvor Jeffrey Eric Foreman Jeffrey Bradford Maltzman MALTZMAN FOREMAN PA One Biscayne Boulevard - Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131 Counsel for Plaintiffs Rena Blaszkowski Amy Hollub Patricia Davis Faruki, Ireland & Cox, P.L.L. 500 Courthouse Plaza, S.W. 10 North Ludlow Street Dayton, Ohio 45402 Of counsel for Defendant The Procter & Gamble Company Sherril May Colombo COZEN O'CONNOR 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 4410 Miami, FL 33131 Counsel for Defendant Del Monte Foods, Co. Hugh S. Turner, Jr. AKERMAN SENTERFITT & EIDSON 350 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1600 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-0006 Counsel for Defendant Publix Supermarkets, Inc. Alan Graham Greer Richman, Greer, Weil, Brumbaugh, Mirabito & Christensen Miami Center, Tenth Floor 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Counsel for Defendant The Procter & Gamble Company Omar Ortega DORTA AND ORTEGA, PA. Douglas Entrance 800 S. Douglas Road, Suite 149 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Counsel for Defendant Mars Incorporated Adriana Riviere-Badell HUNTON & WILLIAMS 1111 Brickell Avenue Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 Counsel for Defendant Nutro Products Inc. John Brian Thomas Murray, Jr. SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P. 1900 Phillips Point West 777 S. Flagler Drive Suite 1900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6198 Counsel for Defendant Petco Animal Supplies and Wal-Mart 4 Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2007 CASE NO.: 07-21221 CIV-CMA Page 5 of 5 Carol A. Licko HOGAN & HARTSON, LLP 1111 Brickell Avenue Suite 1900 Miami, Florida 33131 Counsel for Defendant Nestle USA, Inc. Robert D. McIntosh ADORNO & YOSS, LLP 888 S.E. 3rd Avenue Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316-1159 Counsel for Defendants Menu Foods, Inc. and Menu Foods Income Fund Benjamine Reid Olga M. Viera CARLTON FIELDS, PA 100 S.E. Second Avenue Suite 4000 Miami, Florida 33131-9101 Counsel for Defendant Colgate Palmolive Rolando Andres Diaz Maria Kayanan Cassidy Yen Dang KUBICKI DRAPER 25 W. Flagler Street Penthouse Miami, FL 33130-1712 Counsel for Pet Supermarket, Inc. Susan Elizabeth Mortensen COFFEY BURLINGTON 2699 S. Bayshore Drive Penthouse Miami, Fl. 33133 Counsel for Defendant Petsmart, Inc. Charles P. Flick Kathleen S. Phang SEIPP, FLICK & KISSANE, LLP Two Alhambra Plaza Suite 800 Miami, FL 33134-5241 Counsel for Defendant Target Corp. 5

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?