I-View Now, LLC v. Police Priority, Inc.

Filing 10

ORDER Granting 9 Motion to Extend Time to Answer/Respond re: 1 Complaint. Police Priority, Inc. answer due 1/25/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 1/2/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Albert P. Allan
North Carolina Bar No. 18882
Allan Law Firm, PLLC
409 East Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant Police Priority, Inc.

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
11

I-VIEW NOW, LLC
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

v.
Police Priority, Inc. and
Does 1 through 10,
Defendants.

⏐
⏐
⏐
⏐
⏐
⏐
⏐
⏐
⏐
⏐
⏐

2:17-CV-2604-RFB-VCF

Defendant Police Priority’s
Unopposed Motion for Extension
of Time To Answer or Otherwise
Respond
(First Request)

Defendant Police Priority, Inc. moves this Court for a thirty-day
extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint filed
by Plaintiff I-View Now, LLC in this action. This is Police Priority’s first
motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the
complaint. Currently, Police Priority’s answer or responsive motion is

27
28

!1

1
2

due by December 26, 2017. If granted, Police Priority’s answer or
responsive motion would be due no later than January 25, 2018.

3
4
5

Counsel for Police Priority has not yet filed its verified petition,
but will do so as soon as it obtains certification of counsel’s good

6
7
8

standing from the clerk of the Supreme Court of North Carolina. As
soon as counsel obtains the certification, counsel will comply with LR IA

9
10
11

11-2. Counsel expects compliance within thirty days of this motion.
Police Priority requests this extension because, due to the holiday

12
13
14

schedule and other matters, Police Priority’s counsel has not had
adequate time to review the allegations in the complaint in sufficient

15
16
17

detail to prepare an answer or responsive motion. Although the
complaint was served on December 5, 2017, counsel for Police Priority

18
19
20

was not aware that the complaint had been served until December 14,
2017. Given counsel’s prior commitments and the intervening holidays,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

counsel has not had time to adequately prepare its response.
As this is a patent-infringement lawsuit, significant time will need
to be devoted to investigating not only the allegations in the complaint,
but also the patent at issue, the file history, and the Police Priority
product at issue.

!2

Counsel for Police Priority has consulted with counsel for Plaintiff

1
2

I-View Now, and counsel for I-View Now does not object to Police

3
4
5

Priority’s request for a thirty-day extension of time, to January 25,
2018.

6
7

This 23rd day of December, 2017.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

/s/ Albert P. Allan
Albert P. Allan
Allan Law Firm, PLLC
409 East Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
State Bar No. 18882
Attorney for Defendant Police Priority, Inc..

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED:

22
23
24
25

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED:

26
27
28

!3

1-2-2018
__________________________


1
2

Certificate of Service
I, Albert P. Allan, hereby certify that on December 23, 2017, the

3
4
5

foregoing Defendant Police Priority’s Unopposed Motion for Extension
of Time To Answer or Otherwise Respond was served upon counsel of

6
7
8

record using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notifications
of the filing to the following:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Jura C. Zibas, Esq.
[e-mail]
Martin B. Ready, Esq.
[e-mail]
David S. Kahn, Esq.
[e-mail]

16
17

Date: December 23, 2017

/s/ Albert P. Allan
Albert P. Allan

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

!4