STELOR PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. OOGLES N GOOGLES et al

Filing 43

MOTION for Extension of Time to October 24, 2005 to file response to 34 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by STELOR PRODUCTIONS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kaplan, Kevin)

STELOR PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. OOGLES N GOOGLES et al

Doc. 43

Case 1:05-cv-00354-DFH-TAB

Document 43

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION STELOR PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. OOGLES N GOOGLES, an Indiana corporation; KEVIN MENDELL; DANYA MENDELL; MICHELLE COTE; ROB LENDERMAN; STACEY LENDERMAN; BRENDA MURTY; MARGIE THOMAS; ROB SLYTER; ELIZABETH SLYTER; CORINNA SPARKS; CHRISTINE WATERBURRY; LEIGH SUNDLING; and TINA CARTAYA Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 1:05-cv-0354-DFH-TAB

PLAINTIFF'S AGREED MOTION FOR EXSTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER BRIEF TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS Pursuant to Southern District of Indiana Local Rule 6.1, Plaintiff Stelor Productions, Inc. moves for an enlargement of time to file and serve its answer brief to Defendants' motion to dismiss. In support thereof, Plaintiff states as follows: Defendants' motion to dismiss is based on the argument Plaintiff is not the real party in interest in this litigation and therefore lacks standing. Based on Plaintiff's prior motion, this Court previously issued an Order on September 26, 2005 providing that Defendants would have 5 days to file either any additional affidavits and that Plaintiff would then have 15 days after service to respond to the motion to dismiss.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-00354-DFH-TAB

Document 43

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 2 of 3

Due to the fact that the undersigned's client has been traveling for business purposes and his input is necessary to adequately respond to the motion, as well as to Plaintiff's desire to supplement the record in response to the affidavit filed by Defendants, Plaintiff respectfully requests an additional enlargement of time to file the answer brief, up to and including October 24, 2005. Plaintiff has contacted Defendants' counsel, who has authorized the undersigned to represent that he does not oppose this motion.. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension to file its answer brief to at least October 24, 2005. Respectfully submitted. John David Hoover, Attorney No. 7945-49 HOOVER HULL BAKER & HEATH LLP 111 Monument Circle, Ste. 4400 P.O. Box 44989 Indianapolis, IN 46244-0989 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] E- mail: [e-mail] Of counsel: Kevin C. Kaplan (admitted pro hac vice) David J. Zack (admitted pro hac vice) Burlington, Weil, Schwiep, Kaplan & Blonsky, P.A. 2699 S. Bayshore Drive ­ PH Miami, Florida 33133 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff, Stelor Productions, Inc. By: 2 /s/ Kevin Kaplan /s/ David J. Zack

Case 1:05-cv-00354-DFH-TAB

Document 43

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 17, 2005, a copy of the foregoing Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Answer Brief was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's systems. Bryan S. Redding, Esq. COHEN, GARELICH AND GLAZIER E- mail address: [e-mail] By: /s/ Kevin Kaplan /s/ David J. Zack

3