United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SHORTEN TIME Re: Dkt. No.
8
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Shorten Time for the
briefing and hearing schedule for Plaintiff's Motion for
Writ of Attachment of Sale Proceeds. For the reasons
described below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
Mark Porter ("Plaintiff"), an alleged co-founder
and 7.5% shareholder in Defendant Convergent Mobile, Inc.
("Defendant Convergent") filed a complaint on June
15, 2016, contending that Defendant Convergent, along with
director and shareholder Matthew Breen ("Defendant
Breen") and director and shareholder Krishna Pillai
("Defendant Pillai") are liable for breach of
fiduciary duty, dilution of stock, fraudulent concealment,
and breach of contract as a result of, inter alia,
their plan to provide Plaintiff with less than 1% of the
proceeds from the upcoming sale of Defendant Convergent to
Smartxlabs Fund I LP and Smartxlabs ESG Fund I L.P. Plaintiff
also seeks a declaratory judgment. In addition to Defendants
Convergent, Breen, and Pillai, Plaintiff has named Smartxlabs
Fund I LP and Smartxlabs ESG Fund I L.P. as "Rule 19
Defendants."
II.
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
Plaintiff
now moves to shorten the briefing and hearing schedule for
Plaintiff's Motion for Writ of Attachment of Sale
Proceeds pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3. He argues that, if
the Motion to Shorten Time is not granted,
Based on the timeline provided by [Defendant Convergent], the
hearing would occur after the closing, which would result in
the distribution of the sale proceeds that Mr. Porter would
be lawfully entitled to if the court determines that Mr.
Porter owns 7.5% of CMI's stock. In order to avoid this
inequitable result, Mr. Porter requests that the Court issue
a writ of attachment encumbering $2, 467, 500 of the sale
proceeds (above the $345, 000 that CMI has represented it
would pay to Mr. Porter) and that the motion be heard on an
expedited basis.
(Dkt. 8, at 5.)
Defendants
oppose the Motion to Shorten Time. In addition to noting
Plaintiff's failure to comply with several local rules,
they argue that: (i) Plaintiff has not shown that he will
suffer substantial harm or prejudice if the Motion to Shorten
Time is denied because he waited almost a month to file the
instant motions, and because he failed to establish that
attachment cannot occur after the sale takes place; and (ii)
the expedited schedule will impose a heavy burden on
Defendants and the Court because determination of the Motion
for Writ of Attachment will depend on whether Plaintiff's
claims have probable validity, which will require the Court
to weigh competing evidentiary submissions.
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant
to Civil Local Rule 6-3, a motion to shorten time must be
accompanied by a declaration that:
(1) Sets forth with particularity, the reasons for the
requested enlargement or shortening of time; (2) Describes
the efforts the party has made to obtain a stipulation to the
time change; (3) Identifies the substantial harm or prejudice
that would occur if the Court did not change the time; (4) If
the motion is to shorten time for the Court to hear a motion:
. . . [d]escribes the nature of the underlying dispute that
would be addressed in the motion and briefly summarizes the
position each party had taken; (5) Discloses all previous
time modifications in the case, whether by stipulation or
Court order; (6) Describes the effect the requested time
modification would have on the schedule for the case.
Civ. L.R. 6-3; see also Golden Gate Pharmacy Servs., Inc.
v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. C-09-3854 MMC, 2009 WL
3415680, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2009) (denying request to
shorten time for hearing on TRO where plaintiff failed to
show substantial harm or prejudice in connection with
corporate merger).
IV.
...