Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00739/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00739-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE

COMPANY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PG&H COMMUNICATION, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-15-0739-EMC

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S LETTER

OF AUGUST 21, 2015

(Docket No. 42)

Plaintiffs (various “Bell” telephone companies) initiated this action against Defendant

PG&H Communication, Inc. (“PG&H”) in February 2015. On August 17, 2015, the Court issued an

order to show cause to PG&H – instructing it to explain (no later than September 10, 2015) (1) why

its counterclaims should not be dismissed and (2) why a default should not be entered against it

based on its failure to have an attorney appear in the case to represent it. Later the same day, the

parties filed a notice requesting an early settlement conference with a magistrate judge. See Docket

No. 39. Because of that request, the Court’s ADR unit subsequently set a telephone conference for

September 28, 2015. See Docket No. 41. 

Ying Su, a nonattorney purporting to act on PG&H’s behalf, has now sent a letter to the

Court. Ying Su asks the Court to postpone PG&H’s response to the order to show cause until some

time after the September 28 ADR telephone conference. Ying Su seems to concede that PG&H will

be forced to default if there is no settlement of the case, if only because it does not have the finances

needed to hire an attorney to defend the case.

Case 3:15-cv-00739-EMC Document 43 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Taking into account Ying Su’s letter, as well as all other evidence of record, the Court

hereby GRANTS PG&H an extension of time to respond to the order to show cause. The Court

shall temporarily defer setting a new date for the response to be filed. No later than October 5, 2015

(i.e., a week after the ADR telephone conference), the parties shall file a joint statement with the

Court providing an update as to the status of ADR.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00739-EMC Document 43 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 2