UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 20, 2012
PETE TITTL, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
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.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.