Opinion
Case No.: 3:20-cv-02475-BEN-AGS
01-11-2021
TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation; HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation; and HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, Plaintiff, v. SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES, LLC now known as SAFRAN PASSENGER INNOVATIONS, LLC, a California corporation, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
[ECF No. 5]
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Twin City Fire Insurance Company, an Indiana corporation; Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, a Connecticut corporation; and Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, a Connecticut corporation (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), bring this action for breach of contract against Defendant Systems and Software Enterprises, LLC now known as Safran Passenger Innovations, LLC, a California corporation ("Defendant"). ECF No. 1. Before the Court is Plaintiffs and Defendant's Stipulation to Extend Time for Defendant to respond to the complaint (the "Joint Motion"). ECF No. 5. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion.
II. BACKGROUND
On December 18, 2020, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant, alleging three claims for relief for: (1) breach of contract; (2) account stated; and (3) unjust enrichment/quantum meruit. ECF No. 1.
On December 21, 2020, Plaintiffs served Defendant. ECF No. 5 at 2; see also ECF No. 4. On January 8, 2021, Plaintiffs and Defendant filed a Stipulation for Extension of Time to Respond to Initial Complaint, seeking to extend Defendant's time to file a responsive pleading from Monday, January 11, 2021, to Wednesday, February 10, 2021. ECF No. 5 at 2.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a defendant to file a responsive pleading within either (1) twenty-one days of being served with the summons and complaint or (2) sixty days after the request for a waiver was sent. Pursuant to the Local Rules, "[e]xtensions of time for answering, or moving to dismiss a complaint will only be secured by obtaining the approval of a judicial officer, who will base the decision on a showing of good case." S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 12.1. Thus, "[i]n the Southern District, court approval is required for any extension of time to answer or move to dismiss the complaint." Phillips, Virginia A., et al., Rutter Group Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial, § 8:913 (The Rutter Group April 2020).
IV. ORDER
The Court finds good cause exists for the extension. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. Defendant shall until February 10, 2021 to respond to the complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 11, 2021
/s/_________
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ
United States District Judge