Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00792/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00792-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HOMEM and WENDY HOMEM,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

INTEC CORPORATION and JIM

CHAMBLEE,

Defendants /

No. C 05-0792 MMC

ORDER GRANTING THIRD PARTY

DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR

ORDER SHORTENING TIME; SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Before the Court is third party defendant APV North America, Inc.’s (“APV”)

“Application For Order Shortening Time To File and Have Heard Its Motion to Dismiss, Or

In The Alternative Motion To Sever And/Or Motion To Modify The Pretrial Order For An

Enlargement Of Time To Prepare For Trial And Opening Discovery,” filed October 16,

2006. As of 6:20 p.m. today, no opposition has been filed. See Civil L.R. 6-3(c) (providing

opposition to motion to shorten time must be filed “no later than the third court day after

receiving the motion”).

Given the imminent pretrial conference and trial, and good cause appearing, APV’s

application for an order shortening time is hereby GRANTED. Any opposition or other

response to APV’s motion to dismiss, to sever, and/or to enlarge time shall be filed no later

than October 23, 2006, by 2:00 p.m., at which time the matter will stand submitted.

Based on an initial review of APV’s motion, however, and, again, in the interests of

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 219 Filed 10/19/06 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

1

Intec USA, LLC was joined as a party herein on May 19, 2006, (see Second

Amended Complaint ¶ 3), and first filed an answer to the claims asserted against it on

August 3, 2006. Consequently, the third-party complaint filed August 9, 2006 appears to be

timely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a) (providing third-party plaintiff may, without leave of court,

file third-party complaint “not later than 10 days after serving its “original answer”).

2

Any request for relief based on the asserted unavailability of APV’s lead trial

counsel shall be directed to Magistrate Judge Chen.

2

time, the Court advises the parties that because the third-party complaint omits any facts to

support the conclusory assertions as to liability contained therein, such complaint would

appear to be subject to dismissal, with leave to amend, for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 If no viable claim against APV remains pending

before the Court, APV’s alternative requests to sever the claims against it and/or modify the

pretrial order would appear to be premature; similarly, APV’s earlier-filed “Motion for

Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim Or, In The Alternative, Motion For Summary

Judgment, And/Or Other Relief,” noticed for hearing December 1, 2006, would appear to

be moot.

Because, as discussed above, APV has not demonstrated a likelihood of dismissal

with prejudice, APV shall attend the October 31, 2006 Settlement Conference and, to the

extent practicable, participate therein, including submission of a settlement conference

statement.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 219 Filed 10/19/06 Page 2 of 2