Opinion
24-cv-02927-PCP
06-14-2024
UNIFFACY INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEASIA INFOTECH PVT. LTD., et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: EXTENSION OF RESPONSE DEADLINE
RE: DKT. NO. 14
P. Casey Pitts, United States District Judge
On May 29, 2024, the Court held a hearing on plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt. No. 7. The Court converted plaintiffs' motion to a motion for a preliminary injunction, set the motion for hearing on July 11, 2024, and required defendants to respond to plaintiffs' motion by June 20, 2024.
On June 13, 2024, defendants contacted the Court's courtroom deputy by email requesting an extension of their deadline to respond based on their difficulty in procuring counsel.
Defendants' email was as follows:
Your Honor,
We, Talwar Advocates, are an Indian Law Firm and write for and on behalf of our clients - Seasia Infotech Pvt. Ltd., R.P. Singh and Anil Rana (the defendants in the captioned lawsuit) instituted before the Hon'ble United States District Court, Northern District Court of California. We respectfully request that the defendants be allowed an extension of time for seeking adequate representation and for responding to the TRO application as directed. The Hon'ble court had directed that reply be filed by the defendants on or before 20th June 2024. We pray that an extension of 45 days [6 weeks] be granted to our clients for the same for the reasons discussed below.
We understand that we cannot represent our clients in the captioned matter before U.S. courts and are assisting them in retaining adequate representation in California. However, the defendants being an Indian entity and an Indian resident, having no office or employees in
California or the greater United States, are struggling to identify U.S. counsel able and willing to accept foreign payment. We are also investigating how we might be able to transfer a large initial retainer deposit to counsel before they are willing to represent our clients. Please appreciate that not only are the initial retainer fees of experienced attorneys/firms large for foreign litigants, in addition, the exchange-rate makes the amount payable quite exorbitant. Our clients are religiously reaching out to and holding interviews with firms and counsels, and are making arrangements for payment of the retainer fee as well; however, the exercise is taking some time and is ending upon being quite onerous and overwhelming for the defendants.
In our discussions with the California counsel candidates, we have come to understand that the service of Complaint itself was improper and not in compliance with the applicable laws of the Hague Convention, and that until proper service, Plaintiffs may not have a right to proceed with their TRO application. Irrespective, and without waiving any arguments as to the sufficiency of service, our clients shall respond to the Complaint and TRO application as soon as they secure representation and bring to light the frivolousness of the Plaintiffs' action by way of the reply.
We have attached herewith the declaration on behalf of our client Mr. RP Singh (second named defendant), the CEO of Seasia Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (first named defendant), wherein the following material submissions have been made:
1. That he is an Indian, CEO of an Indian corporation (Para 1), not having any office in California (Para 2).
2. That the captioned lawsuit by the Plaintiffs is unfounded since the impugned product of our client ‘Prodacker', predates the Defendants' first interaction with the Plaintiffs. Therefore, our clients could not have possibly misappropriated the Plaintiffs' alleged Trade Secret or infringed any alleged Copyright in the ERP product being developed by our clients. This was explained to Ms Kapoor (second named Plaintiff) even before the present action, and she appeared convinced at that time. (Para 3 (i)-(iv))
3. Settlement was attempted by the Defendants before as well as after the complaint, but to no avail. (Para 4)
4. That the Plaintiffs have exploited the judicial system to drag the Defendants to a jurisdiction most inconvenient (Para 7) and for claims utterly frivolous (Para 3(vi))
5. That he is finding it very hard to secure the exorbitant sums of money payable as retainer to CA counsels for adequate representation, particularly being a foreign litigant and in view of the applicable exchange rates. (Para 5) Accordingly, he has prayed for extension of time, in the interest of justice, to be able to retain the counsels and file the necessary reply. (Para 6)
6. To demonstrate good faith, he has also undertaken that Seasia Infotech Pvt. Ltd. neither has, nor intends to infringe upon, in any manner whatsoever, the alleged Trade Secrets and/or Copyright of the
Plaintiffs in their ERP Systems product, if any. (Para 8) He has further assured that he shall diligently utilize the additional time granted herein to fulfill his obligations in this matter. (Para 10)
In view of the above, it is prayed that the motion for extension be allowed to serve the interests of justice.
Sincerely,
Talwar AdvocatesDefendants' email included an attached declaration from R.P. Singh, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Defendants' request for an extension of their deadline to oppose plaintiffs' motion appears to be supported by good cause. Accordingly, plaintiffs are ordered to show cause, by no later than Monday, June 17, 2024, why (1) the deadline for defendants' response should not be extended to Monday, August 5, 2024, (2) the deadline for plaintiffs' reply, if any, should not be extended to Thursday, August 15, 2024, and (3) the hearing on plaintiffs' motion should not be reset to Thursday, August 29, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
(EXHIBIT A OMITTED).