Opinion
2:22-cv-01832-GMN-EJY
11-21-2022
SATA GmbH & Co. KG, a German Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Qingdao Hanspray New Material Technology Co. a Chinese Company; Qingdao Hanbo Plastic Technology Co. Ltd. a Chinese Company; and Hanspray Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., a Chinese Company, Defendants.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC STEVEN A. CALOIARO KEVIN D. EVERAGE ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF SATA GMBH & CO. KG WEIDE & MILLER, LTD F. CHRISTOPHER AUSTIN, ESQ. ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, QINGDAO HANSPRAY NEW MATERIAL TECHNOLOGY CO.; QINGDAO HANBO PLASTIC TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; AND HANSPRAY INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC STEVEN A. CALOIARO KEVIN D. EVERAGE ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF SATA GMBH & CO. KG
WEIDE & MILLER, LTD F. CHRISTOPHER AUSTIN, ESQ. ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, QINGDAO HANSPRAY NEW MATERIAL TECHNOLOGY CO.; QINGDAO HANBO PLASTIC TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; AND HANSPRAY INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
(FIRST REQUEST)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) and Local Rule 1A 6-1, Plaintiff SATA GmbH & Co. KG (“Plaintiff” or “SATA”) and Defendants Qingdao Hanspray New Material Technology Co. a Chinese Company; Qingdao Hanbo Plastic Technology Co. Ltd., a Chinese Company; and Hanspray Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., a Chinese Company, (collectively “Defendants” or “Hanspray Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby agree and stipulate to a thirty-day extension of time for Defendants to file and serve their answers or other responses to the Complaint from the current deadline of September 22, 2022, up to and including December 22, 2022. This is the first request by the parties for such an extension.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) provides in pertinent part that “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) .. if request is made, before the time or its extension expires ..” Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). Indeed, “[u]nder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the court may, for good cause, extend a deadline if a request is made “before the original time or its extension expires .. The Ninth Circuit has equated good cause with the exercise of due diligence.” Maxson v. H&R Block, Inc., Case No.: 2:16-cv-00152-APG-CWH, 2017 WL 1078633, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 21, 2017) (citations omitted).
This stipulation is made before the expiration of the “original time” and good cause exists for the stipulated extension to provide Defendants with an opportunity to consult with their undersigned Defense counsel in this matter. This is a complex patent infringement action filed against foreign defendants all of which reside in China. Defendants only retained the undersigned counsel a few days ago and will need additional time to consult with counsel. This task has been rendered more complicated by the fact that such communications have and likely will continue to require the employment of translation services both for oral consultation and document review.
For the foregoing reasons, the parties hereby stipulate to extend the deadline for the Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint to December 22, 2022.
IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.