Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01064/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01064-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 “No reply memorandum shall exceed ten (10) pages without leave of the judge.” 

CIV. L.R. 7.1(f).

07cv1064

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PLATYPUS WEAR, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HORIZONTE LTDA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07CV-1064-L(RBB)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING

DATE AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

15-PAGE REPLY BRIEF [doc. #28]

Defendants request a continuance of the current September 24, 2007 hearing date for their

motion to dismiss or in the alternative, to transfer venue [doc. #17] because they need additional

time to properly prepare a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition to their motion to dismiss or to transfer

venue. Moreover, defendants seek to file their reply with an additional five pages so that their

brief would contain 15 pages rather than the 10 pages set forth in Civil Local Rule 7.1(f).1

 

Plaintiffs oppose the ex parte application contending that the joint motion the parties had

previously filed permitted both plaintiffs and defendants to have an additional five pages for

their opposition and reply memoranda. The joint motion to which plaintiffs refer was withdrawn

but not until after plaintiffs submitted their opposition that was within the 25 page limit provided

by the Civil Local Rules. CIV. L.R. 7.1(f)

Case 3:07-cv-01064-L-RBB Document 42 Filed 09/21/07 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

2 07cv1064

Because plaintiffs had already filed their opposition within the 25page limit, they no

longer needed the joint motion for an extension of page limitation and accordingly argue that

defendants should not be permitted to obtain five additional pages for their reply memorandum. 

In the alternative, plaintiffs seek to file an amended opposition that would include five additional

pages.

Based on the parties’ previously filed joint motion [doc. #25] and in the interest of justice,

IT IS ORDERED granting defendants’ ex parte application for leave to file a 15-page reply

brief. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs may file a superseding amended opposition

to defendants’ motion to dismiss or in the alternative, to transfer venue that shall not exceed 30

pages and is due no later than October 1, 2007. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED defendants’ 15-

page reply memorandum is due no later than October 10, 2007. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

vacating the September 24, 2007 hearing date on defendants’ motion and resetting the hearing

for October 22, 2007. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court finds this matter suitable

for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7.1(d)(1). Accordingly, no appearances are required. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 24, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-01064-L-RBB Document 42 Filed 09/21/07 Page 2 of 2