Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00178/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00178-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1121 Trademark Infringement

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DEREK GITMED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16 -cv-00178-DAD-SAB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JOHN 

GITMED’S MOTION FOR 120 DAY 

EXTENSION OF TIME 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JOHN 

GITMED THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE 

DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER TO 

FILE HIS RESPONSIVE PLEADING

(ECF No. 31)

On February 8, 2016, plaintiff Eli Lilly filed a complaint in this action against defendants 

John Derek Gitmed, Holly Gitmed, Felicia Gitmed, and Anthony Pollino, Jr. (ECF No. 1.) On 

August 3, 2016, defendant John Gitmed filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 27.) On August 9, 

2016, the Court denied defendant John Gitmed’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 28.) The Court 

ordered defendant John Gitmed to file a pleading responsive to the complaint within thirty (30) 

days from the date of service of this order. 

On August 29, 2016, defendant John Gitmed filed a motion for an extension of time to 

file his responsive pleading. (ECF No. 31.) Defendant John Gitmed requests a one hundred 

twenty (120) day extension of time, or until December 18, 2016, to file his responsive pleading. 

(ECF No. 31.) Defendant John Gitmed states that the additional time is needed in order to 

permit him to investigate this claim and to prepare appropriate responsive pleadings. (ECF No. 

Case 1:16-cv-00178-DAD-SAB Document 32 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 2
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

31.) Defendant John Gitmed did not provide any additional information in his request. Based 

upon a review of defendant John Gitmed’s request for an extension of time, the Court denies 

defendant John Gitmed’s motion for a one hundred twenty day extension of time to file his 

responsive pleading. However, the Court grants defendant John Gitmed thirty (30) days from the 

date of service of this order to file his responsive pleading. Defendant John Gitmed is advised 

that further extensions of time to continue deadlines will only be granted upon a showing of good 

cause. Specific and detailed showings of good cause are favored over general requests for 

extensions of time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant John Gitmed’s motion for a one hundred twenty (120) day extension of 

time to file his responsive pleading is DENIED; and

2. Defendant John Gitmed is granted thirty days (30) from the date of service of this 

order to file his responsive pleading. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00178-DAD-SAB Document 32 Filed 08/30/16 Page 2 of 2