3:17-cv-157-AC PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A BRIEF EXTENSION OF THE 

DEADLINES SET FORTH IN THE SCHEDULING ORDER OF MAY 8, 2019

(ECF. #163)

Page 1 

WENDY LYON, OSB No.: 162408

WLyon@FoxRothschild.com 

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 

1001 4th Avenue, Suite 4500 

Seattle, WA 98154 

Telephone: 206-389-1667 

Facsimile: 206-389-1708 

LINCOLN BANDLOW – Pro Hac Vice Application Pending

Lincoln@BandlowLaw.com 

LAW OFFICES OF LINCOLN BANDLOW, PC 

1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Telephone: 310-556-9680 

Facsimile: 310-861-5550 

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOHN HUSZAR

Defendant. 

Case No.: 3:15-cv-00907-AC

PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR A BRIEF 

EXTENSION OF THE DEADLINES 

SET FORTH IN THE SCHEDULING 

ORDER OF MAY 8, 2019 (ECF # 163) 

LR. 7.1 CONFERAL 

Plaintiff’s counsel certifies he has conferred with counsel for the Defendant who 

indicated Defendant will file an opposition to this ex parte application. 

Case 3:15-cv-00907-AC Document 165 Filed 06/06/19 Page 1 of 6
3:17-cv-157-AC PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A BRIEF EXTENSION OF THE 

DEADLINES SET FORTH IN THE SCHEDULING ORDER OF MAY 8, 2019

(ECF. #163)

Page 2 

EX PARTE APPLICATION 

Pursuant to the Order of the Hon. Judge John V. Acosta (ECF No. 163), Plaintiff’s and 

Defendant’s “supplemental pleadings updating their original arguments in light of the opinions 

filed since original briefing was completed regarding their respective motions for summary 

judgment” (“Supplemental Briefing”) are due on June 7, 2019 and the response “to any 

additional arguments/briefing” (“Response Briefing”) is due by June 21, 2019. Plaintiff requests 

a brief period of additional time (two weeks) to allow Plaintiff’s newly added counsel to review 

voluminous case records and file its supplemental pleading. Thus, Plaintiff requests that the 

Court make the following calendaring changes: 

1. The deadline for all parties to file their Supplemental Briefing be continued from 

June 7, 2019 to June 21, 2019; and 

2. The deadline for all parties to file their Response Briefing be continued from June 

21, 2019 to July 12, 2019. 

SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM 

Prior to the present counsel for Plaintiff being added to this case, Plaintiff and Defendant 

had filed motions for summary judgment in this case. Plaintiff’s motion relied on certain 

requests for admission that went without a response and thus, it was argued, Defendant had 

essentially conceded all the basis for liability in this case. Defendant’s motion relied on various 

arguments regarding the infringement detection technology at issue in the case and Plaintiff’s 

proof of ownership of the work at issue. 

On March 3, 2019, the Honorable Judge John Acosta issued his Findings and 

Case 3:15-cv-00907-AC Document 165 Filed 06/06/19 Page 2 of 6
3:17-cv-157-AC PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A BRIEF EXTENSION OF THE 

DEADLINES SET FORTH IN THE SCHEDULING ORDER OF MAY 8, 2019

(ECF. #163)

Page 3 

Recommendation in which he held that Plaintiff’s motion should be granted and Defendant’s 

motion should be denied. ECF #156. On that same day, Judge Acosta issued an Order referring 

his Findings and Recommendation to the Honorable Judge Michael Simon. ECF #157. 

Just last month, however, on May 7, 2019, Judge Simon issued an Order declining to 

adopt the Findings and Recommendations, holding that the requests for admission that were the 

subject of the Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion had been served on the corporate entity that 

had previously been the defendant in the case, but not on the current individual defendant, John 

Huszar, and thus could not be used against Mr. Huszar. ECF #162. Thus, Judge Simon 

remanded the case to Judge Acosta “for consideration on the merits of Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment and Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment” without reference to 

the requests for admission that had previously been deemed admitted. ECF #162. The next day, 

on May 8, 2019, Judge Acosta issued an Order scheduling the Supplemental Briefing for June 7, 

2019 and the Responding Briefing for June 21, 2019. 

On April 3, 2019, the Court allowed Wendy E. Lyon of Fox Rothschild LLP to be 

substituted as counsel of record for Plaintiff in place of attorney Michael Atkins and Megan 

Vaniman. At that time, attorney Lincoln Bandlow was also a partner at Fox Rothschild LLP in 

Los Angeles and had been asked by Plaintiff to take over the handling of this action. Mr. 

Bandlow intended to file an application for admission pro hac vice. At that time, however, what 

was pending in this matter was simply the ruling on Judge Acosta’s Findings and 

Recommendation that summary judgment be granted in Plaintiff’s favor as to liability. Thus, 

since there was no particular action that needed to be taken, the application was not filed at the 

time. 

On April 26, 2019, however, Mr. Bandlow left the Fox Rothschild law firm and started 

Case 3:15-cv-00907-AC Document 165 Filed 06/06/19 Page 3 of 6
3:17-cv-157-AC PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A BRIEF EXTENSION OF THE 

DEADLINES SET FORTH IN THE SCHEDULING ORDER OF MAY 8, 2019

(ECF. #163)

Page 4 

his own law firm, Law Offices of Lincoln Bandlow, P.C. From that time forward, in regard to 

this case, discussions commenced regarding whether Mr. Bandlow would continue to represent 

the Plaintiff in connection with this lawsuit and whether Ms. Lyon and Fox Rothschild would 

continue to act as local counsel. As those discussions were taking place, on May 8, 2019, Judge 

Acosta issued his Order. It was only within the last few days, however, that Plaintiff has been 

able to put into place the deal that allows Mr. Bandlow to continue to work on this matter and 

Ms. Lyon to remain local counsel in the matter. Moreover, it was not until today that Mr. 

Bandlow received from Fox Rothschild the electronic files that pertain to this matter (this delay 

was through no fault of Fox Rothschild but simply a product of there being a large number of 

files that had to be transferred to Mr. Bandlow upon his departure from the firm). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel reached out to counsel for Defendant to seek a short twoweek extension of the Supplemental Briefing and Response Briefing deadlines to allow counsel 

for Plaintiff to review the voluminous filings done in support of the competing summary 

judgment motions in the case.1 In addition, because of the recent development from May 7, 

2019 of the Court rejecting the Findings and Recommendation and the Order requiring 

supplemental briefing, counsel for Plaintiff also broached the subject of resolving the case 

without the need for further litigation. Defendant’s counsel stated that they would oppose any 

request for an extension, citing purported slights from prior counsel and the length of time the 

case has been pending, but did not provide any particular purported prejudice that would come 

1

 Defendant’s counsel may assert that such pleadings should have been extensively reviewed 

back in April when new counsel took over the case. But such review at that time would have 

made no sense: at that time, it appeared summary judgment would be granted in Plaintiff’s favor 

based on the Findings and Recommendation of Judge Acosta. It was not until only recently on 

May 7, 2019, when such Findings and Recommendation were not adopted, requiring a 

reevaluation of those pleadings. 

Case 3:15-cv-00907-AC Document 165 Filed 06/06/19 Page 4 of 6
3:17-cv-157-AC PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A BRIEF EXTENSION OF THE 

DEADLINES SET FORTH IN THE SCHEDULING ORDER OF MAY 8, 2019

(ECF. #163)

Page 5 

from this brief extension. It did appear from counsel for Defendant, however, that there may be 

some interest in conducting further settlement discussions. 

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant this short extension that Defendant 

rejected. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may extend the deadlines for the 

supplemental summary judgment briefing “for good cause.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1); Ahanchian v. 

Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010). This rule is to be “liberally construed.” 

Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259; Rogers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983); Staren v. 

American Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 529 F.2d 1257, 1263. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 

(the Federal Rules “should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and 

inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). Thus, “requests for extensions of 

time made before the applicable deadline has passed should ‘normally ... be granted in the 

absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.’” 

Anhanchian, supra (quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and 

Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004). Finally, “good cause” is “a non-rigorous standard that has been 

construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts.” Anhanchian, supra. 

Here, there is good cause to allow this brief extension and there would be no prejudice to 

Defendant. Counsel for Plaintiff is new to the case, had timing issues due to a transition between 

firms, and otherwise requires additional time in this matter to not only make sure that the Court 

is provided with the information it needs to fairly adjudicate the case, but to see if further 

settlement discussions could lead to the early resolution of the case. None of this would 

prejudice the Defendant, indeed, it might be to the benefit of the Defendant to the extent the 

Defendant is interested in an earlier, rather than a prolonged, resolution of this matter. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court make the following calendaring 

Case 3:15-cv-00907-AC Document 165 Filed 06/06/19 Page 5 of 6
3:17-cv-157-AC PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A BRIEF EXTENSION OF THE 

DEADLINES SET FORTH IN THE SCHEDULING ORDER OF MAY 8, 2019

(ECF. #163)

Page 6 

changes: 

1. The deadline for all parties to file their Supplemental Briefing be continued from 

June 7, 2019 to June 21, 2019; and 

2. The deadline for all parties to file their Response Briefing be continued from June 

21, 2019 to July 12, 2019.2

June 6, 2019

WENDY LYON, OSB No.: 162408

WLyon@FoxRothschild.com 

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 

1001 4th Avenue, Suite 4500 

Seattle, WA 98154 

Telephone: 206-389-1667 

Facsimile: 206-389-1708 

LINCOLN BANDLOW – Pro Hac Vice App. Pending

lincoln@bandlowlaw.com 

LAW OFFICES OF LINCOLN BANDLOW, P.C. 

1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Telephone: 310-556-9680 

Facsimile: 310-861-0555

2

 Although only a two-week extension is requested for the deadline to file the Supplemental 

Briefing, Plaintiff requests a three-week extension for the deadline to file the Response Briefing 

simply because two weeks from June 21 would fall on July 5, 2019, a date on which one can 

assume the Court and the parties will be rightfully occupied with enjoying with their families the 

Fourth of July holiday, and thus it would be best to push that date one week further (making a 

total extension of three weeks) to July 12, 2019. 

Case 3:15-cv-00907-AC Document 165 Filed 06/06/19 Page 6 of 6