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.

Pete Tittl, et al v. Hilton Worldwide

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 20, 2012

PETE TITTL, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE THE ANSWER (Doc. 7)

Plaintiff brings this matter as a class action challenging Defendants' policy of recording calls placed to reservation and customer service centers, without alerting callers that their conversations were being recorded. (Doc. 1-2 at 2)

Before the Court is the stipulation of the parties to extend the time by which Defendants must file an answer. (Doc. 7 at 2) Seemingly, Defendants contend that the Central District is a more convenient forum and report that an earlier case, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court and then removed to the Central District, was dismissed for failure to state a claim by that Court. Plaintiffs have appealed this dismissal. Id. Based upon this, the parties report that Defendants intend to file a motion for change of venue-apparently under 28 U.S.C. § 1404-or a motion to stay. Id. Notably, Defendants do not indicate they intend to file a motion to dismiss for improper venue, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3).

It seems apparent that Defendants appreciate that 28 U.S.C. § 1404 is not a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. Nevertheless, the stipulation fails to explain why Defendants should not be required to file a responsive pleading in this case before or in conjunction with their motion for 2 change of venue or why such a filing would impose any prejudice on them. Finally, there is no 3 explanation given why, despite that Defendants were served with the complaint on October 26, 2012, 4 they have been unable to use the ensuing eight weeks to draft the motions they now intend to file 5 along with a responsive pleading such to prevent delay in this case. 6

Therefore, because the parties have failed to demonstrate good cause, the stipulation to extend

7 time for Defendants to file an answer is DENIED. 8 9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121220

© 1992-2012 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.