Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-05175/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-05175-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

1

 The Court notes that, even after Defendant failed to file a timely opposition under the Civil

Local Rules, it gave Defendant one final opportunity to provide any opposition by a date and time

certain (i.e., by noon of June 28, 2010). Defendant failed to provide a submission by that date and time.

His submission was almost half an hour late.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIXT GREENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPROUT CAFÉ,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-08-5175 EMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

(Docket No. 84)

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, which it seeks to have

heard on shortened time. In the proposed amendment, Plaintiff seeks to add as additional defendants

Tu Ha Huynh and Vinh Vi, the co-owners of Defendant. Plaintiff also seeks to add as a defendant

Café Sprout, Inc., doing business as Sprout Café. Under a regularly noticed schedule, Plaintiff’s

motion for leave to amend would not be heard until July 28, 2010. Plaintiff asks that the motion be

heard on shortened time because fact discovery in the case is slated to close on July 14, 2010, and

expert discovery on August 30, 2010. Defendant failed to file a timely opposition to Plaintiff’s

request for shortened time. See Civ. L.R. 6-3(c) (providing that an opposition to a motion to shorten

time shall be filed “no later than 4 days after receiving the motion”).1

 In the interest of justice,

however, the Court has considered the merits of Defendant’s untimely opposition.

Case 3:08-cv-05175-EMC Document 89 Filed 06/28/10 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

Having considered the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS the request for

shortened time. Given the upcoming discovery deadlines, it is appropriate to have the motion heard

on an accelerated basis. Moreover, the Court cannot discern any unfair prejudice to Defendant by

having the motion heard on an expedited basis, particularly given the following briefing schedule

which affords Defendant almost the full two weeks to file an opposition. Accordingly, the Court

sets the motion for leave to amend for hearing on July 14, 2010, at 10:30 a.m. Defendant’s

opposition shall be filed by July 2, 2010, and Plaintiff’s reply by July 7, 2010. 

The Court acknowledges that the hearing on the motion will be held on the same day as the

fact discovery cut-off. However, the July 7 hearing date requested by Plaintiff cannot be

accommodated by the Court. Moreover, in fairness to Defendant, more than a week’s time should

be given to file an opposition. Should the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion, however, it is willing to

entertain a request to extend the fact discovery cut-off if there is good case for such.

This order disposes of Docket No. 84.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2010

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05175-EMC Document 89 Filed 06/28/10 Page 2 of 2