Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01478/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01478-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Almar Sales Co., Inc.,
Defendant
No Slippy Hair Clippy, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

______________________________________ 

No Slippy Hair Clippy, Inc. v. Almar Sales Co., Inc., Case No. 2:2010-cv-01478 - 1 

Stipulation to, and Order For, Further Extension of Time to Respond

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

Ann McFarland Draper (State Bar No. 065669) 

 ann@draperlaw.net

Draper Law Offices 

601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1150 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Tel: (415) 391-4200 

Fax: (415) 989-4739 

Ezra Sutton, Esq. 

 esutton@ezrasutton.com

Joseph Sutton, Esq. 

 jsutton@ezrasutton.com

Ezra Sutton, P.A.

900 Route 9 

Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095 

Tel: (732) 634-3521 

Fax: (732) 634-3511 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Almar Sales Co., Inc. 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NO SLIPPY HAIR CLIPPY, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ALMAR SALES CO., INC., et al, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:2010-cv-01478 JAM-JFM

STIPULATION TO, AND ORDER FOR, 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT 

Subject to any required approval by the Court, Plaintiff and Defendant, through their 

respective counsel, hereby stipulate to a further extension of the time within which the 

Defendant must file its initial responsive pleading to the Plaintiff NO SLIPPY HAIR CLIPPY, 

INC.’s Plaintiff’s Complaint For: (1) Infringement of Federal Trademark Registration No. 

3,218,564; (2) False Designation of Origin Under 15 USC §1125(A); (3) Common Law Unfair 

Competition And Trademark Infringement; (4) Cancellation Of Registered Trademark No. 

3,257,554 and 3,669,693; and (5) Unfair Competition Under California Business And 

Professions Code §17200, to and including August 6, 2010, or to such other date that the court 

may order. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:10-cv-01478-JAM -JFM Document 15 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 3
______________________________________ 

No Slippy Hair Clippy, Inc. v. Almar Sales Co., Inc., Case No. 2:2010-cv-01478 - 2 

Stipulation to, and Order For, Further Extension of Time to Respond

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

Plaintiff effected service of the complaint on June 24, 2010. The response would initially 

have been due on July 15, 2010. 

Defendant has obtained by stipulation one prior 2-week extension of the time within which 

to file Defendant's answer. If this further extension is approved, the aggregate extension of time 

will be only 22 days. 

Good cause exists for granting this further extension. As stated in the previous stipulation, 

defendant is located in New York. Defendant only retained litigation counsel to defend it in this 

litigation shortly before the initial response date. Litigation counsel is located in New Jersey and 

had to engage local counsel who could appear in this district. Upon review of the pleadings, it is 

apparent that certain defenses (including objection to venue, which Defendant does not waive) 

must be asserted by pre-answer (Rule 12) motion. The proper preparation of such motion(s) is 

time-consumptive, particularly the process of gathering the appropriate evidence and presenting it 

in admissible form. Defense counsel initially believed that it could complete all of the necessary 

paperwork within the 2-week extension period but has been unable to do so, and needs an 

additional six days in which to do so. No party will be prejudiced by this short further delay. The 

total number of extension days is less than the 28 days permitted under E.D.L.Rule 144. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: July 30, 2010 LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS D. HEIMLICH 

 By__________________________________ 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff No Slippy Hair Clippy, Inc. 

DATED: July 30, 2010 DRAPER LAW OFFICES 

 EZRA SUTTON, P.A. 

 By__________________________________ 

 Attorneys for Defendant Almar Sales, Inc. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:10-cv-01478-JAM -JFM Document 15 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 3
______________________________________ 

No Slippy Hair Clippy, Inc. v. Almar Sales Co., Inc., Case No. 2:2010-cv-01478 - 3 

Stipulation to, and Order For, Further Extension of Time to Respond

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

CERTIFICATION

I, Ann McFarland Draper, hereby attest that the concurrence to the filing of this document 

has been obtained from each signatory to the foregoing stipulation, and that I have been duly 

authorized to annotate the signature of each such signatory whose name appears above in 

accordance with Local ECF Rules 15.2 and 15.2. 

DATED: July 30, 2010 DRAPER LAW OFFICES 

 EZRA SUTTON, P.A. 

 By__________________________________ 

 Attorneys for Defendant Almar Sales, Inc. 

ORDER

By stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby approves 

the stipulation and orders that the above-named Defendant shall be allowed a further extension of 

time, to an including August 6, 2010, within which to file its initial responsive pleading to the 

Plaintiff NO SLIPPY HAIR CLIPPY, INC.’s Plaintiff’s Complaint For: (1) Infringement of 

Federal Trademark Registration No. 3,218,564; (2) False Designation of Origin Under 15 USC 

§1125(A); (3) Common Law Unfair Competition And Trademark Infringement; (4) Cancellation 

Of Registered Trademark No. 3,257,554 and 3,669,693; and (5) Unfair Competition Under 

California Business And Professions Code §17200. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 2, 2010 /s/ John A. Mendez________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:10-cv-01478-JAM -JFM Document 15 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 3