DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Page 1

Michael O. Stevens, OSB No. 095198 

michael@hillsborofirm.com

STEVENS & LEGAL, LLC

3699 NE John Olsen Avenue

Hillsboro, OR 97124

Tel: (971) 533-6178

Fax: (971) 228-2608

J. Curtis Edmondson, CASB No. 236105 (pro hac vice)

jcedmondson@edmolaw.com

EDMONDSON IP LAW

3699 NE John Olsen Avenue

Hillsboro, OR 97124

Tel: (503) 336-3749

Fax: (503) 482-7418

David H. Madden, OSB No. 080396 

dhm@mersenne.com

MERSENNE LAW LLC

9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 500

Tigard, OR 97223

Tel: (503) 679-1671

Fax: (503) 512-6113

Attorneys for Defendant JOHN HUSZAR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN HUSZAR 

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-0907-AC

DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION 

FOR A BRIEF EXTENSION OF THE 

DEADLINES SET FORTH IN THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

Defendant John Huszar (“Defendant”) opposes Plaintiff Dallas Buyers Club, LLC’s

Case 3:15-cv-00907-AC Document 166 Filed 06/07/19 Page 1 of 4
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Page 2

(“DBC”), Ex Parte Application for a Brief Extension of the Deadlines Set Forth in the Scheduling 

Order of May 8, 2019 (“MOET”). (See Dkt 165). The MOET should be denied as there is no 

legitimate reason to further delay this case.

MEMORANDUM

I. COUNSEL OF RECORD

The Counsel of Record for Plaintiff has been Wendy Lyon since April 3, 2019 (Dkt. 160). 

Ms. Lyon remains the counsel of record up to and including the filing of the MOET, as Mr. 

Bandlow has not been admitted to this district in any capacity. Such an admission is not guaranteed, 

as a similar application was denied in another court roughly one year ago for Mr. Bandlow. See 

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (1:18-cv-02132), E.D. New York, May 4, 2018.

As noted in the MOET, the file for this case has resided with Fox Rothschild LLP. Fox 

Rothschild LLP also happens to be the firm that employs the counsel of record in this case, Ms. 

Lyon. As such, per the MOET, the counsel of record in this case had full access to prepare the 

supplemental briefing, and any delay is unexplained. Further, all factual assertions in the MOET 

are pure hearsay unsupported by a proper declaration.

II. REASONS TO DENY THE MOET

As explained to Mr. Bandlow (see Decl. of Michael O. Stevens), Defendant and his counsel 

are concerned about how long this case has continued for, which is now nearly four years. This is 

due in part to the numerous extensions Plaintiff has requested in this case. Plaintiff has made four 

requests for extensions of time just since DBC filed its motion for summary judgment. See Dkts. 

132, 136, 140, and 142. Defendant did not previously oppose such requests out of professional 

courtesies, but at some point Plaintiff needs to abide by the schedule set forth by the Court, and 

that time has come.

Case 3:15-cv-00907-AC Document 166 Filed 06/07/19 Page 2 of 4
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Page 3

Furthermore, as noted in the correspondence with Mr. Bandlow, Defendant also objects to 

the MOET due to the documented health reasons noted in the docket. Continued delays do nothing 

than continue the anxiety suffered by Defendant, which had led to the earlier delays in this case. 

The sooner the case comes to a conclusion, the better for Defendant, as justice delayed is justice 

denied.

Meanwhile, Plaintiff has provided no legitimate reason for yet another delay in this case. 

The Court is only allowing supplemental briefing on motions that were fully briefed long ago. 

There is little new case law that would be pertinent to the facts and laws at issue here, and actual 

counsel for Plaintiff could have completed that research long ago, and should be prepared to file 

on the original deadline. Waiting until Tuesday, June 4, 2019, to approach counsel for Defendant 

also prejudices Defendant, who has been preparing to timely file his supplemental briefing. See 

Decl. of J. Curtis Edmondson.

This would be a different story had Mr. Bandlow approached Defense counsel much 

sooner, or had a proper reason for the need for further delay. But there is no proper reason for the 

delay, such as some sort of unexpected issue arising. Mr. Bandlow admits he came onto the case 

prior to the issuing of the scheduling order at issue here. See exhibits to Decl. of Michael O. 

Stevens. Everything needed in the case is available on PACER, so there is no just, proper reason 

for the delay.

Lastly, counsel of record for Plaintiff has been involved in the case for two months and 

works for the firm where the file was allegedly located. Defendant notes there was no declaration 

included with the MOET, so we have nothing properly in the record regarding the circumstances 

alleged in the MOET. However, the Court’s records do show that Ms. Lyon has been actively 

involved in litigating other cases in this district for her firm. See Decl. of J. Curtis Edmondson. 

Case 3:15-cv-00907-AC Document 166 Filed 06/07/19 Page 3 of 4
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Page 4

Further, LR 83-3(a)(1) requires her meaningful participation in this case. Thus, Ms. Lyon should 

have her supplemental briefing prepared, as she has not made any motion for an extension of time 

nor explained why she is unable to timely file the supplemental briefing.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has continued to delay this case since summary judgment was sought by both 

parties. Further delays are simply unwarranted. For the reasons set forth above, Defendant 

respectfully requests the Court deny the Motion for an Extension of Time, leaving the current 

briefing schedule intact.

DATED: June 7, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

STEVENS & LEGAL, LLC

/s/ Michael O. Stevens

Michael O. Stevens, OSB No. 095198

michael@hillsborofirm.com

Attorney for Defendant

Case 3:15-cv-00907-AC Document 166 Filed 06/07/19 Page 4 of 4