Free Order on Motion for Hearing - District Court of California - California

Case 5:07-cv-04507-JF

Document 26

Filed 11/08/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

**E-Filed 11/08/07**

NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

ACTICON TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff, v. PRETEC ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Case Number C 07-4507 JF (HRL) ORDER1 DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

On October 15, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and set a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction for November 9, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. In denying the request for the TRO, the Court indicated that the parties could file supplemental briefs in support or opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction by November 2, 2007. Three days before the deadline for filing the supplemental briefs, Defendants requested a sixty (60) day extension of time for the hearing. Defendants asserted that they were unable to obtain "a proper attorney" in time for the November 9 hearing. The Court denied Defendants' request in part because Defendants were represented by counsel in opposing

This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 07-4507 JF (PVT) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME. (JFLC3)

Case 5:07-cv-04507-JF

Document 26

Filed 11/08/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff's request for a TRO. After the Court issued its Order, Defendants' counsel filed a paper with the Court entitled "Notice of Substitution of Counsel." This paper requests that Defendants' attorney not be placed on the email notification list in the future because she represented Defendants for the limited purpose of defending the TRO. On November 2, 2007, Defendants filed a second request for an extension of time, again seeking additional time to hire counsel. In opposing Plaintiff's motion, Defendants' former attorney filed opposition to Plaintiff's request for a TRO and for preliminary injunction. To this extent, Defendants already have had the assistance of counsel in opposing Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. Because it denied Plaintiff's request for a TRO in part because it was prepared to hear the motion for a preliminary injunction expeditiously and Plaintiff will be prejudiced by delay in this case, the Court will deny Defendants' second request for an extension of time. III. ORDER Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' second request for an extension of time is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction will remain set for hearing on November 9, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.

DATED: November 8, 2007

__________________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

2
Case No. C 07-4507 JF (HRL) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME. (JFLC3)

Case 5:07-cv-04507-JF

Document 26

Filed 11/08/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Copies of Order served on:

[email protected]

[email protected]

3
Case No. C 07-4507 JF (HRL) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME. (JFLC3)