Opinion
2:22-cv-01832-GMN-EJY
01-27-2023
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 By: Steven A. Caloiaro (NVB 12344) Kevin D. Everage (NVB 15913) Attorneys for Plaintiff SATA GmbH & Co. KG WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. By: Christopher Austin, Esq. (NVB 6559) Attorneys for Defendants, Qingdao Hanspray New Material Technology Co.; Qingdao Hanbo Plastic Technology Co. Ltd.; and Hanspray Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC By: Steven A. Caloiaro (NVB 12344) Kevin D. Everage (NVB 15913) Attorneys for Plaintiff SATA GmbH & Co. KG
WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. By: Christopher Austin, Esq. (NVB 6559) 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 FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
(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 14-day extension of time for Defendants to file and serve their Reply brief in support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 15) from the current deadline of January 26, 2023, up to and including February 9, 2023. 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. Defendants who are all Chinese entities are currently closed in connection with the Chinese New Year Holiday and will not be able to consult with counsel with regard to the Reply to the Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF 20) in this patent infringement action until Defendants' business re-open next week. Further, because such communications have, and likely will continue to, require the employment of translation services both for oral consultation and document review, such additional time is required.
For the foregoing reasons, the parties hereby stipulate to extend the deadline for the Defendants to file its Reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss to February 9, 2023.
IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED:
IT IS SO ORDERED