UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 2, 2010
NO SLIPPY HAIR CLIPPY, INC., PLAINTIFF,
ALMAR SALES CO., INC., ET AL, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge
STIPULATION TO, AND ORDER FOR, EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
Subject to any required approval by the Court, Plaintiff and Defendant, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to a further extension of the time within which the Defendant must file its initial responsive pleading to the Plaintiff NO SLIPPY HAIR CLIPPY, INC.'s Plaintiff's Complaint For: (1) Infringement of Federal Trademark Registration No. 3,218,564; (2) False Designation of Origin Under 15 USC §1125(A); (3) Common Law Unfair Competition And Trademark Infringement; (4) Cancellation Of Registered Trademark No. 3,257,554 and 3,669,693; and (5) Unfair Competition Under California Business And Professions Code §17200, to and including August 6, 2010, or to such other date that the court may order.
Plaintiff effected service of the complaint on June 24, 2010. The response would initially have been due on July 15, 2010.
Defendant has obtained by stipulation one prior 2-week extension of the time within which to file Defendant's answer. If this further extension is approved, the aggregate extension of time will be only 22 days.
Good cause exists for granting this further extension. As stated in the previous stipulation, defendant is located in New York. Defendant only retained litigation counsel to defend it in this litigation shortly before the initial response date. Litigation counsel is located in New Jersey and had to engage local counsel who could appear in this district. Upon review of the pleadings, it is apparent that certain defenses (including objection to venue, which Defendant does not waive) must be asserted by pre-answer (Rule 12) motion. The proper preparation of such motion(s) is time-consumptive, particularly the process of gathering the appropriate evidence and presenting it in admissible form. Defense counsel initially believed that it could complete all of the necessary paperwork within the 2-week extension period but has been unable to do so, and needs an additional six days in which to do so. No party will be prejudiced by this short further delay. The total number of extension days is less than the 28 days permitted under E.D.L.Rule 144.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
I, Ann McFarland Draper, hereby attest that the concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory to the foregoing stipulation, and that I have been duly authorized to annotate the signature of each such signatory whose name appears above in accordance with Local ECF Rules 15.2 and 15.2.
DATED: July 30, 2010 DRAPER LAW OFFICES
EZRA SUTTON, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant Almar Sales, Inc.
By stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby approves the stipulation and orders that the above-named Defendant shall be allowed a further extension of time, to an including August 6, 2010, within which to file its initial responsive pleading to the Plaintiff NO SLIPPY HAIR CLIPPY, INC.'s Plaintiff's Complaint For: (1) Infringement of Federal Trademark Registration No. 3,218,564; (2) False Designation of Origin Under 15 USC §1125(A); (3) Common Law Unfair Competition And Trademark Infringement; (4) Cancellation Of Registered Trademark No. 3,257,554 and 3,669,693; and (5) Unfair Competition Under California Business And Professions Code §17200.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.