Johnson v. Charter Communications, Inc

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJanuary 21, 2022
Docket4:21-cv-06135
StatusUnknown

This text of Johnson v. Charter Communications, Inc (Johnson v. Charter Communications, Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. Charter Communications, Inc, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

1 Alexander D. Terepka (SBN 288243) Ryan D. Watstein (pro hac vice) 2 Andrew M. Swindle (pro hac vice) rwatstein@kcozlaw.com 3 aterepka@kcozlaw.com aswindle@kcozlaw.com 4 KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550 5 Atlanta, GA 30363 6 Telephone: (404) 400-7300 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 7 Attorneys for Defendants Charter Communications, Inc. and Spectrum Management Holding 8 Company, LLC 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 LORETTA JOHNSON and CHARLOTTE Case No. 4:21-cv-06135-HSG 12 GUSS, individually, and on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND 13 REPLY DEADLINE AND ORDER 14 Plaintiffs, vs. Honorable Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 15 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a 16 Delaware corporation; SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT HOLDING COMPANY, 17 LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and 18 each of them, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND REPLY DEADLINE 2 Defendants Charter Communications, Inc. and Spectrum Management Holding Company, 3 LLC move for a 14-day extension of time to file replies in support of their pending motion to compel 4 arbitration (ECF 35) and motion to dismiss (ECF 36). In support of the motion, Defendants state as 5 follows: 6 1. Per the Court’s December 29, 2021 Order, ECF 38, the current briefing schedule on 7 the motions is as follows: 8 Deadline Date New Date Defendants’ answer or November 19, 2021 - 9 other response to FAC 10 Plaintiffs’ oppositions January 14, 2022 - Defendants’ replies January 28, 2022 February 11, 2022 11 12 Motion hearing March 31, 2022 - 13 2. Earlier this week, Defendants’ lead counsel in this matter unexpectedly fell ill with 14 COVID-19. Not only did counsel fall ill with COVID-19, but so did his two young children, leaving 15 him without childcare. This has occurred during the time for Defendants to prepare replies in this 16 case. 17 3. The modest extension of the reply deadline Defendants seek will not affect the case 18 schedule or prejudice Plaintiffs. The motions are set for a hearing on March 31, 2022 and no 19 scheduling order has been entered, so no other dates will need to be modified in light of the extension 20 Defendants seek. 21 4. Good cause exists to extend the time for Defendants’ to file their replies. Fed. R. Civ. 22 Proc. 6(b). See, e.g., Martinez v. City of Avondale, 2013 WL 673507, at *4 (D. Ariz. Feb. 25, 2013) 23 (granting extension because of “attorney’s unexpected illness”). 24 5. On January 19, 2022, Defendants’ informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that they would be 25 seeking this 14-day extension of time in light of counsel’s unexpected COVID-19 illness. Plaintiffs’ 26 counsel indicated they would agree to a 7-day extension. But they inexplicably refused to stipulate 27 to an additional 7 days to accommodate illness even though Defendants previously stipulated to permit 1 Plaintiffs’ counsel eight-weeksto file oppositions—four times the usual time per Local Rule 7-3(a)— 2 based on their representations that they required extensions so the briefing schedule would not 3 interfere with the Thanksgiving and December holidays and would permit them sufficient time to 4 prepare the oppositions after a third party deposition (not to accommodate an illness). See paragraph 5 1, above. 6 In light of the foregoing, the Court should extend the time for Defendants to file replies in 7 support of their motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss to February 11, 2022. 8 DATED: January 20, 2022 9 KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 10 By: /s/ Alexander Terepka 11 Alexander Terepka 12 Counsel for Defendants 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 ORDER 2 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IS GRANTED. IT IS SO 3 | ORDERED. ——awa002 AAbnsprrenl 5 DATED: 1/21/2022 . 5 Honorable Judge Haywood S. Gilliany, Jr. 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Johnson v. Charter Communications, Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-charter-communications-inc-cand-2022.