Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al v. Digital Works, Inc. et al

Filing 29

ORDER Granting 26 , 27 , and 28 Motions to Extend Time to Respond (First Request) to 1 Complaint. Marc Caramadre, Jeff Johnson, and Dustin Nielson answers due 9/19/2013. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs must file proof of service as to Marc Caramadre no later than 8/28/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/21/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and U.S.
PHILIPS CORPORATION,

10
11

Plaintiffs,

12

vs.

13

DIGITAL WORKS, INC., et al.,

14
Defendants.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:13-cv-01341-RCJ-NJK

ORDER

16

This matter came before the Court on Defendants Marc Caramadre, Jeff Johnson, and

17

Dustin Nielson’s Motions to Extend Time to Answer Complaint. Docket Nos. 26, 27, and 28,

18

respectively. The Court has reviewed the Defendants’ Motions and finds these motions are

19

appropriately resolved without oral argument. Local Rule 78-2.

20

BACKGROUND

21

Defendant Jeff Johnson was served on July 30, 2013, making his answer to the Complaint

22

due August 20, 2013. Docket No. 11. Defendant Dustin Nielson was served on July 31, 2013,

23

making his answer to the Complaint due August 21, 2013. Docket No. 19. Plaintiffs have not

24

filed a proof of service for Defendant Marc Caramadre.

25

On August 19, 2013, the above three defendants filed individual motions requesting

26

additional time to file answers to the Complaint. Docket Nos. 26, 27, and 28.

27

...

28

...

1

DISCUSSION

2

Pursuant to LR 6-1, every motion to extend time filed before the expiration of the

3

specified deadline shall inform the Court of any previous extensions granted and state the reasons

4

for the extension requested. Here, Defendants have indicated that this is a complex matter and

5

they require additional time to retain counsel. Therefore, the Court finds that additional time to

6

answer the complaint is appropriate under LR 6-1. The parties have not specified the length of

7

time they require, accordingly, the Court finds that 30 days from the date Defendants filed their

8

motions is sufficient. Defendants shall have until September 19, 2013 to respond to the

9

Complaint, whether or not these individual Defendants retain counsel during this period of time.

10

Next, the Court notes that Allegro Media Group is the only corporate defendant who

11

appears to have retained counsel. See Docket No. 24. None of the other corporate defendants has

12

responded to the Complaint or made any other appearance through counsel. However, a

13

corporation cannot appear except through counsel. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506

14

U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th

15

Cir. 1993). Therefore, the corporate defendants shall have until September 19, 2013 to retain

16

counsel and respond to the Complaint.

17

Finally, as stated above, Plaintiffs have not filed a proof of service for Defendant Marc

18

Caramadre. Plaintiffs must file proof of service as to Marc Caramadre no later than August 28,

19

2013.

20

CONCLUSION

21

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,

22

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Marc Caramadre’s Motion to Extend Time to

23
24
25
26
27
28

Answer Complaint (#26) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Jeff Johnson’s Motion to Extend Time to
Answer Complaint (#27) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Dustin Nielson’s Motion to Extend Time
to Answer Complaint (#28) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Marc Caramadre, Jeff Johnson, and Dustin
-2-

1

Nielson shall have until September 19, 2013 to respond to the Complaint, whether or not these

2

individual Defendant retain counsel.

3
4
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs must file proof of service as to Marc
Caramadre no later than August 28, 2013.
DATED this

21st

day of August, 2013

6
7
8

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-