Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01383/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01383-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Balakian
Defendant
Leo Balakian
Defendant
Vince Balakian
Defendant
Jose Hernandez
Petitioner

Document Text:

-1-

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A TWO-WEEK EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

Nicholas J.P. Wagner, #109455 

Wagner & Jones 

The Atrium Building 

1111 East Herndon Ave., Suite 317 

Fresno, CA 93720 (559) 449-1800 

 

Howard W. Foster, pro hac vice counsel 

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. 

33 W. Monroe, Suite 2700 

Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 372-0770 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

(Additional Counsel listed on signature page) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRESNO DIVISION 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A 

TWO-WEEK EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff, Jose Hernandez (“Hernandez”), by undersigned counsel, hereby submits his 

Request for a 14-day Extension of Time to File His Response Brief in Opposition to the 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss(Court Document # 17). For the reasonsset forth, Plaintiff’s 

Request for an Extension of Time should be granted. 

JOSE HERNANDEZ, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

LEO BALAKIAN, ANTHONY BALAKIAN 

AND VINCE BALAKIAN,

 Defendant 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 1:06-cv-01383-OWW-DLB 

Class Action 

Jury Trial Demanded 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A 

TWO-WEEK EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS AND ORDER 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 24 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 4
-2-

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A TWO-WEEK EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

I. A TWO-WEEK EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND 

TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS WILL PREVENT EXPENDING 

UNNECESSARY TIME 

On December 5, 2006, the Balakians filed their Motion to Dismiss, which is set for 

hearing on January 8, 2007. According to Rule 78-230 of the Local Rules, Plaintiff’s 

Opposition Memorandum is currently due on December 22, 2006. The parties have not yet 

had a Rule 26(f) conference. On December 7, 2006, Plaintiff served Counsel for the 

Balakians with a Rule 11 Motion with respect to their Motion to Dismiss. Pursuant to Rule 

11, if the Balakians do not withdraw their Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff cannot file his Motion 

with the Court until December 28, 2006. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests a two-week 

extension (untilJanuary 5, 2007) to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, at which time Plaintiff 

will know whether the Balakians will be withdrawing their Motion to Dismiss. Moreover, 

the two-week extension will prevent Plaintiff from having to spend time responding to the 

Balakian’s Motion if it will prove to be unnecessary. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 24 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 4
-3-

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A TWO-WEEK EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

II. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Request for a two-week extension should be 

granted. 

DATED: December 19, 2006 

By /s/ Howard W. Foster

Howard W. Foster 

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. 

33 W. Monroe St., Suite 2700 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Nicholas J.P. Wagner 

Wagner & Jones 

The Atrium Building 

1111 East Herndon Ave., Suite 317 

Fresno, CA 93720 

 

Michael Goldberg 

The Goldberg Law Firm 

925 N St., Suite 130 

Fresno, CA 93721 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 24 Filed 12/21/06 Page 3 of 4
-4-

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A TWO-WEEK EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

Nicholas J.P. Wagner, #109455 

Wagner & Jones 

The Atrium Building 

1111 East Herndon Ave., Suite 317 

Fresno, CA 93720 (559) 449-1800 

 

Howard W. Foster, pro hac vice counsel 

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. 

33 W. Monroe, Suite 2700 

Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 372-0770 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

(Additional Counsel listed on signature page) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRESNO DIVISION 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Request for an Extension of Time, any opposition 

thereto, and for good cause shown, it is on this 21st day of December, 2006, hereby 

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be due 

January 5, 2007. (Due to the Extension of time to file opposition, the hearing on the 

Motion to Dismiss will be CONTINUED to 1/29/07 at 10:00 a.m.) 

 ___/s/ Oliver W. Wanger________ 

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSE HERNANDEZ, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

LEO BALAKIAN, ANTHONY BALAKIAN 

AND VINCE BALAKIAN,

 Defendant 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 1:06-cv-01383-OWW-DLB 

Class Action 

Jury Trial Demanded 

ORDER 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 24 Filed 12/21/06 Page 4 of 4