Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Co-Investor, AG v. Fonjax

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION


November 30, 2009

CO-INVESTOR, AG, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FONJAX, INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Judge

AND DENYING REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO FILE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM CONFERENCE (Docket 54)

The Court has read and considered the parties' Stipulation and [Proposed] Order for Fonjax, Inc. to File Amended Counterclaim and to Continue Initial Case Management Conference and Related Deadlines. Defendant filed its Answer and Counterclaim on October 23, 2009. The parties propose allowing Defendant to file an amended counterclaim by December 10, 2009, or 30 days after the stipulation is approved, whichever is later, and then allowing Plaintiff an additional 30 days thereafter to file a response to the amended counterclaim. In addition, the parties seek to delay the deadline of their joint Rule 26(f) Report from November 20, 2009 to January 8, 2010 and to continue the initial Case Management Conference from December 2, 2009 to January 20, 2010.

The Court is not persuaded that a further delay in scheduling this case for trial is warranted.

Plaintiff commenced this case on April 4, 2008. On September 22, 2008, the Court issued its ruling on Defendant's motion to dismiss and granted Plaintiff leave to amend its claim for promissory estoppel within 20 days of the Order. Plaintiff never amended its complaint, meaning that Defendant should have filed its Answer no later than 10 days from the date that Plaintiff's 28 amended complaint was due. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(4)(A). For reasons that are not clear, Defendant did not file its Answer and Counterclaim until over a year later on October 23, 2009.

Given the delay in filing its responsive pleading, coupled with the fact that this case has been pending for over a year and a half, the Court finds that this matter should be scheduled for trial as soon as possible. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties' stipulated request (Docket 54) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:

1. Defendant shall have until December 10, 2009 to file its First Amended Counterclaim. Plaintiff's response thereto shall be filed by December 20, 2009.

2. The parties' request to extend the deadline for filing their Rule 26(f) Report is DENIED. The parties' shall file their report forthwith.

3. The Court notes that the parties have failed to file an updated joint case management conference statement, in violation of the Court's scheduling order. As such, the Case Management Conference shall be CONTINUED from December 2, 2009 to December 16, 2009 at 2:45 p.m.

By no later than December 4, 2009, the parties shall file an updated joint case management conference statement that complies with the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California and the Standing Order of this Court. Plaintiff shall be responsible for filing the statement as well as for arranging the conference call. All parties shall be on the line and shall call (510) 637-3559 at the above indicated date and time. The parties are warned that further violations of the Court's orders may result in the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20091130

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.