Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02148/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02148-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125la Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1 

17cv2148-BEN-LL 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NATURAL THOUGHTS, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v. 

PERFORMANCE TOUCH, LLC; THE 

HYGENIC CORPORATION; 

PERFORMANCE HEALTH HOLDINGS

CORPORATION; and DOES 2-10, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 17cv2148-BEN-LL 

ORDER DENYING: (1) JOINT 

MOTION TO CONTINUE 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE; AND 

(2) JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY 

SCHEDULING ORDER WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE 

[ECF Nos. 86, 87] 

 

Currently before the Court are the Parties’: (1) “Joint Motion to Continue Briefing 

Schedule and Hearing Date on Pending Motions” [ECF No. 86]; and (2) “Joint Motion to 

Modify Scheduling Order and Continue Deadlines for 60 Days To Allow Parties to 

Participate in Private Mediation” [ECF No. 87]. 

In the Parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Briefing Schedule, the Parties request a 

two-week extension of the deadlines to complete any remaining briefing on: (1) 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 61]; (2) Defendants’ Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony [ECF No. 70]; and (3) Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application [ECF 

No. 79]. In support, the Parties state the extension is warranted so that the Parties can 

avoid incurring “additional litigation expenses” while the Court rules on the Parties’ 

Case 3:17-cv-02148-BEN-LL Document 88 Filed 05/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

17cv2148-BEN-LL 

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

“Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order.” Id. at 2. 

However, after reviewing the Parties concurrently filed “Joint Motion to Modify 

Scheduling Order,” the Court finds it is not clear what relief the Parties are actually 

seeking in this second motion. Although the Parties characterize the motion as a request 

to “modify” the scheduling order, they also state they are effectively seeking a “stay” of 

the entire case. See ECF Nos. 86 at 2; 87 at 3.1

 The Parties have therefore not made clear 

whether they are requesting: (1) that the entire case be stayed; (2) that the dates and 

deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order be modified (without a stay); or (3) 

that the entire case be stayed for a certain period of time and that the deadlines set forth in 

the Court’s Scheduling Order be modified accordingly. 

For the above reasons, the Parties’ Motions are DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. If the Parties re-file their Motions, they are directed to clearly set forth the 

relief they are seeking. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 13, 2019 

                                               

1

 For example, the Parties state that should the Court grant their Joint Motion to Modify 

the Scheduling Order, than all of the briefing dates and hearing dates for any pending 

motions and the Parties’ agreements regarding various discovery deadlines would 

somehow automatically be continued by sixty days. ECF No. 86 at 4. This is more 

consistent with a stay of the entire case than an extension of the Court’s deadlines. 

Case 3:17-cv-02148-BEN-LL Document 88 Filed 05/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2