Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Xcelis LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North America, 2:17-cv-02463-RFB-CWH. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20171025g91 Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2017
Summary: PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT'S TIME TO FILE ANSWER; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Xcelis LLC ("Xcelis") moves to extend by forty-five (45) days the time for Defendant Panasonic Corporation ("Panasonic") to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. In support, Xcelis states as follows: Panasonic's response to the Complaint is due October 24, 2017. Xcelis' counsel and in-house counsel for Panasonic have confer
More

PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT'S TIME TO FILE ANSWER; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON

Plaintiff Xcelis LLC ("Xcelis") moves to extend by forty-five (45) days the time for Defendant Panasonic Corporation ("Panasonic") to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. In support, Xcelis states as follows: Panasonic's response to the Complaint is due October 24, 2017. Xcelis' counsel and in-house counsel for Panasonic have conferred and agreed to a forty-five (45) day extension to answer to the Complaint. Panasonic needs this time to hire outside counsel and investigate and respond to the allegations of the Complaint. A 45-day extension would make Panasonic's response due by December 8, 2017.

For these reasons, the Parties respectfully request an additional 45 days for Panasonic to answer the Complaint.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer