Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00775/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00775-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331bc Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

1

19-CV-775 JLS (AGS)

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

DESERT MILLING, LLC, 

a limited liability company; 

CLYDE R. EDGAR, an individual; 

and GRACE EDGAR, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROBERT J. HULL, an individual; 

BEACH LINE CITRUS, LLC, 

a limited liability company; and 

IMPERIAL CALIFORNIA OLIVE 

MILL, LLC, a limited liability company,

Defendants.

IMPERIAL CALIFORNIA OLIVE 

MILL, LLC, a California limited liability 

company,

Counter-Claimant,

v.

DESERT MILLING, LLC, an Arizona 

limited liability company dba DESERT 

OLIVE FARMS; CLYDE R. EDGAR, an 

individual; GRACE BENSON EDGAR, 

an individual; and ROES 1 through 20, 

inclusive,

Counter-Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-775 JLS (AGS)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING JOINT 

MOTION FOR ORDER 

EXTENDING COUNTERDEFENDANTS’ TIME TO ANSWER 

FIRST AMENDED 

COUNTERCLAIM, AND

(2) DENYING AS MOOT COUNTERDEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(ECF Nos. 14, 17)

Case 3:19-cv-00775-JLS-AGS Document 18 Filed 08/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-CV-775 JLS (AGS)

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

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Desert Milling, 

LLC; Clyde R. Edgar; and Grace Edgar; Defendant and Counter-Claimant Imperial 

California Olive Mill, LLC; and Defendants Robert J. Hull and Beach Line Citrus, LLC’s 

Joint Motion for Order Extending Counter-Defendants’ Time to Answer First Amended 

Counterclaim (“Joint Mot.,” ECF No. 17). The Parties request a two-week extension of 

Counter-Defendants’ deadline to file an answer to Counter-Claimant’s First Amended 

Counterclaim because “Counter-Defendants’ counsel has been on a pre-planned family 

vacation in North Carolina since August 7, 2019, and will be gone on that vacation through 

August 15, 2019, and has been unable to effectively communicate with his clients to 

properly prepare the answer to the First Amended Counterclaim due to family 

commitments and the time difference from his clients.” Id. at 2. The Parties also agree 

that Counter-Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) was mooted by the filing of the 

First Amended Counterclaim (ECF No. 16). Id. at 3.

Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion (ECF No. 17) and 

DENIES AS MOOT Counter-Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14). CounterDefendants SHALL FILE an answer to Counter-Claimant’s First Amended Counterclaim 

on or before August 23, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00775-JLS-AGS Document 18 Filed 08/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2