Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02054/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02054-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332jd Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

---

1

3.19-cv-02054-W-BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES PYUNG LEE and HEE SOOK 

NAM,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VERIMATRIX, INC., ROBIN “ROSS” 

COOPER, and, INSIDE SECURE,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3.19-cv-02054-W-BLM

CLARIFICATION REGARDING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT [DOC. 47]

On February 21, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure 

to state a claim with leave to amend. [Doc. 41.] Plaintiffs were ordered to file an 

amended complaint on or before March 9, 2020.

On March 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for extension of time to file an 

amended complaint. [Doc. 47.] The Court will interpret this motion as an ex parte 

application. Per Chambers Rules, ex parte applications that are not opposed within two 

Court days will be considered unopposed and may be granted on that ground. 

Further, the duplicate motion [Doc. 46] is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-02054-W-DEB Document 49 Filed 03/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 1