Xcelis LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North America, 17-cv-02463-RFB-CWH. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20171208f17
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 07, 2017
Summary: PLAINTIFF'S SECOND UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT'S TIME TO FILE ANSWER; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Xcelis LLC ("Xcelis" or "Plaintiff") moves to extend by thirty (30) 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 December 8, 2017. (ECF No. 14.) Xcelis and Panasonic are in th
Summary: PLAINTIFF'S SECOND UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT'S TIME TO FILE ANSWER; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Xcelis LLC ("Xcelis" or "Plaintiff") moves to extend by thirty (30) 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 December 8, 2017. (ECF No. 14.) Xcelis and Panasonic are in the..
More
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT'S TIME TO FILE ANSWER; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Xcelis LLC ("Xcelis" or "Plaintiff") moves to extend by thirty (30) 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 December 8, 2017. (ECF No. 14.) Xcelis and Panasonic are in the process of memorializing a settlement in principle to resolve the claims at issue in the Complaint. Xcelis' counsel and inhouse counsel for Panasonic have conferred and agreed that a 30-day extension will provide the Parties time to memorialize the anticipated settlement. A 30-day extension would make Panasonic's response due by January 8, 2018.
For these reasons, the Parties respectfully request an additional 30 days for Panasonic to answer the Complaint.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
