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.

Oracle America, Inc v. Innovative Technology Distributors

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


March 25, 2011

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY DISTRIBUTORS, LLC,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

(re: docket #27)

Plaintiff filed this action on March 7, 2011. See Dkt. #1. An initial Case Management Conference is scheduled for June 1, 2011. On March 11, 2011, Defendant notified the Court of an 20 action pending in New Jersey filed on March 2, 2011, which Defendant asserts is the "first filed" 21 action. On March 21, Plaintiff (Oracle) filed a motion to dismiss, or transfer, in the New Jersey 22 action. Defendant's response is due on April 4, 2007. On March 23, 2011, Defendant filed a 23 motion in this Court, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3, seeking an extension of time to respond to 24 the Complaint from March 30, 2011 to April 14, 2011. See Dkt. #27. Defendant argues that it 25 needs an additional two weeks to "coordinate its responses to the New Jersey and California 26 actions." Defendant submits that Plaintiff "refused even this minor courtesy." 27

On March 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed an opposition arguing that the New Jersey action is not 28 the "first filed" action, but was instead a "race to the courthouse" to avoid an alleged California forum selection clause between the parties. See Dkt. #30. Thus, Plaintiff contends that Defendant "caused the venue dispute" in the first place and is just seeking unnecessary delay.

The Court is troubled by the parties' inability to compromise this early in the litigation. As this litigation goes forward, the Court expects zealous advocacy, but also reasonable compromise 5 from both sides when possible. 6

As no motions have been filed, no prior extensions have been requested, and the Case Management Conference is not set to take place until June 1, 2011, the Court discerns no prejudice 8 in allowing Defendant a brief extension of time to respond to the Complaint. The Court will grant 9

Defendant a one week extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, Defendant's response in this action is due no later than April 6, 2011.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110325

© 1992-2011 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.