Young v. Northwest Computer Accessories, Inc.

Filing 10

ORDER granting 9 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 1/11/22) (yv)

Case 1:21-cv-09071-AJN-RWL Document 10 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 2

New Jersey New York Florida
Joel G. MacMull, Partner
[e-mail]
973.295.3652 Direct

1/11/2022

3 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
973.736.4600 Main
973.325.7467 Fax
570 Lexington Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, New York 10022
212.776.1834 Main
www.lawfirm.ms

January 6, 2022
VIA ECF
Hon. Alison J. Nathan, U.S.D.J.
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re:

Young v. Northwest Computer Accessories, Inc.
Case No. 21-cv-09071-(AJN)-RWL

Dear Judge Nathan,
We represent defendant Northwest Computer Accessories, Inc. (“Defendant”)
in connection with the above-captioned matter. We write to the Court now, with the
consent of plaintiff, to request 30 days to respond or otherwise move against the
Complaint. (ECF 1.)
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1), Defendant submits good cause exists for the
requested extension of time. This office was only retained on Tuesday of this week in
connection with this matter and, based on a discussion with plaintiff’s counsel this
morning, the parties are optimistic that they will be able to resolve this matter
amicably in the coming days.
While plaintiff has filed an affidavit of service which purports to have
effectuated service of the Complaint on November 19, 2021 (ECF 6), “Aaron ‘Doe’”
was not authorized to accept service on behalf of the Defendant. (Id.) Nevertheless,
while this office is aware of the standard set forth in Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara,
10 F.3d 90, 96 (2d Cir. 1993) concerning why a default should not be entered, plaintiff
has not filed a motion for a default pursuant to § 3(K) of Your Honor’s Individual
4875-8041-9592, v. 1

Case 1:21-cv-09071-AJN-RWL Document 10 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 2

Practices, has indicated that he does not intend to do so, and is agreeable to the 30
day extension of time being requested. Accordingly, we respectfully submit the
requirements set forth in Enron Oil Corp. are not applicable here.
In further compliance with § 1(E) of Your Honor’s Practices, Defendant further
states as follows:
1.) The original due date for Defendant to respond to the Complaint (assuming
arguendo the validity of service) was December 10, 2021;
2.) No prior request for an extension of time to respond to the Complaint has
been made;
3.) Defendant respectfully requests an additional thirty (30) days – until
February 7, 2022 – to file its Answer or otherwise move.
The Court’s continued attention to this matter is appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,

Joel G. MacMull
cc:

All Counsel of Record (via ECF only)

1/11/2022

4875-8041-9592, v. 1