Free
Message: My doctor is excited about future ...
ANTON HANDAL (Bar No. 113812)
PAMELA C. CHALK (Bar No. 216411)
GABRIEL HEDRICK (Bar No. 220649)
H
ANDAL & ASSOCIATES
1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1321
San Diego, California 92101
Tel: 619.544.6400
Fax: 619.696.0323
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Intel Corporation,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:13-cv-2905-H-BGS
PLAINTIFF E.DIGITAL
CORPORATION’S UNOPPOSED
EX PARTE
MOTION TO
EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANT TO ANSWER OR
OTHERWISE RESPOND TO
THE COMPLAINT UNTIL
MARCH 20, 2014 OR
WHATEVER DATE THE
COURT DEEMS JUST AND
REASONABLE UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Assigned to the Honorable
Judge Marilyn L. Huff
Courtroom 15A (Annex)
TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA:
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 12.1 and 7.2, Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation
(“Plaintiff”) hereby presents this
ex parte motion for an order extending the time
for Defendant Intel Corporation, Inc. (“Defendant”) to answer or otherwise
respond to the Complaint (“Complaint”). (Dkt #1). Plaintiff filed a Complaint in
this action against the Defendant on or about December 5, 2013. (Dkt #1).
Defendant has not appeared or otherwise responded to the Complaint in this case to
date. It is anticipated that this motion is unopposed.
I. THE STATUS OF SERVICE UPON THE DEFENDANT
Plaintiff has served the Summons and Complaint upon Defendant on or
about January 13, 2014. (
See, Dkt #10). Defendant’s response to the Complaint is
currently due on or before February 3, 2014.
II. BASIS FOR REQUEST FOR EXTENSION
Counsel for the Defendant has indicated that the Defendant needs additional
time to review the Complaint in this matter and to prepare a response thereto.
Time is also needed for the parties to consider the possibility of an early resolution
of this matter. With the above in mind, Plaintiff’s extension request for Defendant
to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is not for delay.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully request that Defendant be provided an
extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint until March 20,
2014 or whatever date the Court deems just and reasonable under the
circumstances. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.2, Plaintiff will separately submit a
Proposed Order granting the relief requested.
Dated: January 24, 2014
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
By: /s/Pamela C. Chalk
Anton N. Handal
Pamela C. Chalk
Gabriel G. Hedrick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply