Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Integral Development Corporation v. Tolat

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 8, 2013

INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation, Plaintiff,
VIRAL TOLAT, an individual, and DOES 1-20, Defendant.

John L. Cooper (State Bar No. 50324), Stephanie Skaff (State Bar No. 183119), Anthony P. Schoenberg (State Bar No. 203714), FARELLA, BRAUN & MARTEL, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant, VIRAL TOLAT.


JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.

Pursuant to this Court's Civil Standing Order and Civil Local Rule 7-11, Defendant Viral Tolat hereby moves this Court for a short continuance of the dates set forth in the scheduling Order dated July 23, 2013. Good cause exists for this request in that Mr. Tolat has just retained new counsel to represent him in this matter, and his former attorneys are withdrawing as counsel of record in this action. Given the complexity of this matter and the very large number of pending and anticipated motions and filings in this case, this short requested continuance of 5 weeks is necessary in order to give Mr. Tolat's new counsel at Farella Braun Martel LLP an opportunity to get up to speed on the case, and to accurately and professionally address these many pending and anticipated matters.

A short continuance is particularly important here, as many of the filings in the case are redacted or sealed and have not previously been available to Mr. Tolat's new counsel. The unredacted and sealed filings encompasse many if not most of the substantive filings to date, including three currently pending three motions - a voluminous motion for summary adjudication and for a preliminary injunction and a motion seeking terminating sanctions, which are supported by substantial evidentiary submissions - that Mr. Tolat's new counsel has not yet been able to access in unredacted or unsealed form. Indeed, Counsel will not be permitted under the Protective Order (Docket No. 50) to review material designated as protected until after this Court signs the order allowing new counsel to substitute in as "counsel of record." Under the current case schedule, Mr. Tolat's oppositions to those motions are due one week from today, on August 9, 2013. Given these circumstances, Mr. Tolat will be significantly prejudiced if the requested continuance is not granted and his new counsel are required to respond to these dispositive motions under the present timeline.

Mr. Tolat's new counsel spoke by telephone earlier today with Plaintiff's counsel, Christopher Sargent, and requested a short continuance of the hearing on the pending motions from September 27, 2013 to November 1, 2013. ( See Declaration of John L. Cooper in Support of Administrative Motion Requesting Continuance of Dates in Scheduling Order ("Cooper Decl.") ¶ 6.) Mr. Sargent responded that he did not have authority to agree to such a request but said he would communicate the request to Jack Russo and someone from his office would get back to Mr. Tolat's new counsel. Since that phone conversation Mr. Russo has communicated to Mr. Tolat's current counsel of record, Steven Eckhaus, by email that the requested continuance is rejected. (Id. ¶ 7.) Because of the extremely short deadlines under the current case schedule, Mr. Tolat is now forced to seek the Court's assistance by filing the instant Motion.

This Motion is being filed at the first available opportunity, as new counsel have just been retained today. Other than the hearing dates addressed by this Motion, which have been set consistent with dates shown as "available" on the Court's calendar, there are no other dates pending in this matter that would be affected by this requested continuance.[1]

For these reasons, Mr. Tolat hereby requests that the Court modify the existing schedule as set forth in this Court's operative scheduling order (Docket No. 109) by continuing those deadlines to the new dates set forth below:

1. Defendant Tolat shall file his Answer and Counterclaims to Integral's First Amended Complaint, and/or move with respect to some or all of the allegations in the Amended Complaint on August 23, 2013;
a. If Defendant files a Rule 12 Motion, Plaintiff's Opposition shall be filed by September 6, 2013; Defendant's Reply shall be filed by September 13, 2013;
2. Plaintiff Integral shall Answer Defendant Tolat's Counterclaims and/or file any Opposition and/or responsive motions to such Counterclaims on September 2, 2013;
a. If Plaintiff files a Rule 12 motion, Defendant's Opposition shall be filed by September 13, 2013; Plaintiff's Reply shall be filed by September 20, 2013;
3. Any motions filed by Plaintiff Integral pertaining to Defendant Tolat's Counterclaims, and any motions filed by Defendant Tolat concerning Plaintiff Integral's Amended Complaint shall be heard on September 27, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.
4. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Re: Spoliation and for Contempt.
a. Hearing Date: November 1, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.
b. Plaintiff may re-file or amend its moving papers by: September 27, 2013
c. Defendant will file any opposition by: October 11, 2013
d. Plaintiff will file any reply by: October 18, 2013.
e. Each brief will be no longer than 15 pages.
5. Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Adjudication and for ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.