Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07949/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07949-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Property

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GIA-GMI, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability

Company,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL R. MICHENER, an individual,

JAMES M. MCWALTERS, an individual,

CHARLES D. TOY, an individual, ALLAN

M. DUNN, an individual, LARRY J.

AUSTIN, an individual, W. DENMAN VAN

NESS, an individual, MICHAEL P.

SALUCCI, an individual, COMPUTER AND

SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES, INC., a

California corporation, PANGAEA

HOLDINGS, LLC, a dissolved Delaware

limited liability company, and PANGAEA

TRADING CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation

Defendants.

_______________________________________

No. C 06-7949 SBA 

ORDER

[Docket No. 22] 

On March 1, 2007, plaintiff GIA-GMI, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant Ex Parte Motion to

Enlarge Time in Which to Answer Under Local Rule 6-3 (“Motion”). Having considered Defendants’

Motion and the written Opposition thereto, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Motion.

BACKGROUND

There are ten defendants in this case (collectively “Defendants”). On the last day in which to

answer, February 26, 2007, Defendants a filed 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the first three counts of the

six-count complaint. The three causes of action were directed at only two of the ten defendants. On

the same day, the remaining eight non-moving Defendants requested a further extension of time in

which to answer, which had already been extended by stipulation by Plaintiff; Plaintiff denied the

Case 4:06-cv-07949-SBA Document 29 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 3
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

request. Three days after the deadline had passed, on March 1, 2007, rather than answer, the

remaining eight Defendants filed the instant ex parte motion to enlarge time to 20 days after the

April 3, 2007 hearing on the 12(b)(6) motion. 

The 12(b)(6) motion addresses only three of the six causes of action, which were directed at

the two moving parties. The other three causes of action are directed towards the remaining nonmoving parties, who now bring the instant motion.

ANALYSIS

The only grounds Defendants give for the requested enlargement are “the interests of judicial

economy,” which defendants do not expand upon, and that because “[m]ost of the claims asserted

are based on factual allegations common to all defendants,” it would be “costly” and “burdensome”

to require the remaining eight Defendants to prepare and file answers while the other two

Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion is pending. Mot. at 2:4; 2:2-23.

The Motion is DENIED for the following reasons:

1. The Motion is untimely as it was filed three days after the deadline has

passed, rather than 10 days before the deadline as required by Local Rule 6-1(b).

2. The 12(b)(6) motion only addresses causes of action that were not directed

towards the Defendants now seeking the enlargement. While there may be factual

issues common to all causes of action, the remaining eight Defendants were not

properly parties to the 12(b)(6) motion and therefore their time to answer is not tolled

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A).

3. Local Rule 6-3 requires that the moving part identify the “substantial harm or

prejudice” that would occur if the enlargement were not granted. L.R. 6.3(a)(1)(3). 

The only “harm” defendants identify is that it would be “costly” and “burdensome”

to require an answer. This does not rise to the level of a substantial harm as required

by Local Rule 6-3 .

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion to Enlarge Time in

Case 4:06-cv-07949-SBA Document 29 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Which to Answer Under Local Rule 6-3 is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendants James M. McWalters, Charles D. Toy,

Larry J. Austin, W. Denman Van Ness, Michael P. Salucci, Computer and Software

Enterprises, Inc., Pangea Holdings, LLC, and Pangea Trading Corporation must file their

answers to Plaintiff’s Complaint no later than seven days after the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: 3/13/07 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-07949-SBA Document 29 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 3