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.

Berster Technologies, LLC Doing v. Coy Christmas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 8, 2011

BERSTER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC DOING BUSINESS AS CHIP CONNECT, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COY CHRISTMAS, AN INDIVIDUAL; JIM RONDING, AN INDIVIDUAL; BGRMODS, LLC, A MINNESOTA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; CALIBUR11, LLC, A MINNESOTA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND EINSTEINMODZ, A WISCONSIN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

This matter comes before the court upon defendants' ex parte application for extension of time to respond to the amended complaint, filed on July 1, 2011. (ECF 12.) Plaintiff filed its conditional opposition on July 6, 2011. (ECF 15.)

The amended complaint was filed on June 20, 2011. (ECF 6.) It is thirty-eight (38) pages long, with sixteen (16) causes of action, 178 paragraphs of allegations, and five (5) separate defendants. Defendants seek this extension because they "they have just retained counsel . . . and are presently collecting information to respond . . . ." (Ex Parte App. at 1.) In their application, defendants comply with Local Rule 144. The court finds good cause for granting defendants an extension of time to respond.

Plaintiff's conditional opposition to defendants' ex parte application requests that the court "condition any grant of additional time to respond to the FAC on the following: (a) that the extension by itself cannot be asserted as a defense to, or prejudice in any way, Plaintiff's right to request preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, or other equitable relief; and (b) that the Court allow Plaintiff to conduct limited, expedited discovery in the form of Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production of Documents in connection with Defendants' use of Plaintiff's Technology, with Defendants' response due within seven (7) days of service by e-mail." (Pl.'s Opp'n at 4.) The court finds there is good cause for granting this request, subject to the following limitation: plaintiff is granted its request to conduct limited, expedited discovery in the form of five (5) Interrogatories, five (5) Requests for Admissions, and five (5) Requests for Production of Documents in connection with defendants' use of plaintiff's technology, with defendants' response due within seven (7) days of service by e-mail.

Accordingly, defendants' application and plaintiff's requests in its conditional opposition, subject to the above-stated limitation, are hereby GRANTED. Defendants shall file an answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint by August 9, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20110708

© 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.