Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05290/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05290-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

Case No. 15-cv-05290-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTIONS TO ENTER OR SET ASIDE DEFAULTS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTERAXON INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NEUROTEK, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05290-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND 

DENYING MOTIONS TO ENTER OR 

SET ASIDE DEFAULTS

(Re: Docket Nos. 26, 28, 30)

Earlier this month, the Clerk of Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to enter default as to 

Defendants NeuroTek, LLC and Mindwaves, Ltd., but the Clerk declined to enter default as to 

Defendant Jonathan Cowan.

1

 Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration of the latter decision.2 

Meanwhile, Cowan moves for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ complaint3and to set 

aside the defaults as to the corporate Defendants.

4

Although Cowan still has “failed to plead or otherwise defend” within the meaning of Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 55(a), he has “appear[ed] and indicate[d] a desire to contest [the] action.”5 In keeping 

 

1

See Docket Nos. 18, 19, 20.

2

See Docket No. 26. Although Plaintiffs cite to no Rule permitting such a motion, the court will 

interpret it as a renewed motion to enter default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). The latter may be 

directed to the court instead of to the Clerk of Court. See In re Burchell Enters., Inc., Case No. 

04-cv-05193, 2005 WL 1154302, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2005) (citing Breuer Elec. Mfg. Co. v. 

Toronado Sys. of Am., Inc., 687 F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1982)).

3

See Docket No. 28.

4

See Docket No. 30.

5

Rogovsky Enter., Inc. v. Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 3d 1034, 1039-40 (D. Minn. 

Case 4:15-cv-05290-KAW Document 45 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 15-cv-05290-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTIONS TO ENTER OR SET ASIDE DEFAULTS

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

with “the policy of allowing cases to be tried on the merits,”6the court therefore exercises its 

discretion to allow Cowan to proceed. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED, and Cowan’s motion is 

GRANTED-IN-PART. He shall file any responsive pleading by April 8, 2016.

As to the remaining Defendants, however, Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) requires corporate entities to 

“appear . . . through a member of the bar of this Court.” Because Cowan is not a member of this 

court, he may not file motions on their behalf. The corporate Defendants’ motion to set aside their 

defaults therefore is DENIED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2015) (quoting Wendt v. Pratt, 154 F.R.D. 229, 230 (D. Minn. 1994)); see also 10A Charles Alan 

Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2682 (3d ed. 1998).

6

Rogovsky Enter., 88 F. Supp. 3d at 1040 (quoting Wendt, 154 F.R.D. at 230).

Case 4:15-cv-05290-KAW Document 45 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 2