Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02071/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02071-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statutes

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THELEN REID & PRIEST LLP,

Plaintiff and

Counterdefendant,

v

FRANÇOIS MARLAND,

Defendant and

Counterclaimant. /

No C 06-2071 VRW

ORDER

Although permitted to serve and file an amended answer

and counterclaims by the court’s November 15, 2006, order, Doc #63,

François Marland’s filing materially differed from his proposed

pleadings. Compare Doc #48 Ex A (proposed pleading) with Doc #65

(filed pleading). Thelen Reid & Priest LLP (“Thelen”) sought

administrative relief challenging these discrepancies. Doc #68. 

Thereafter, Marland filed a revised amended answer and

counterclaims that removed the substantive changes. Doc #72. The

only remaining differences are corrections of typographical errors.

Case 3:06-cv-02071-VRW Document 76 Filed 11/29/06 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

Thelen now seeks additional time to file an answer to

Marland’s revised counterclaims. Doc #74. The court will modify

the previous briefing schedule to accommodate Marland’s late

filing. 

Accordingly, Thelen’s motion for administrative relief,

Doc #68, is DENIED AS MOOT and Thelen’s motion for additional time,

Doc #74, is GRANTED. Thelen shall file its answer to Marland’s

revised amended answer and counter-counterclaims on or before

December 1, 2006. Should Thelen assert any counter-counterclaims,

defendants Marland and Maas shall file motions to dismiss on or

before December 14, 2006, to be heard on January 18, 2007, at 2:00

pm.

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02071-VRW Document 76 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 2