Ravin Crossbows, LLC v. Hunter's Manufacturing Company, Inc.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 RAVIN CROSSBOWS, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02213-GMN-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 HUNTER’S MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. d/b/a TENPOINT 8 CROSSBOW TECHNOLOGIES,

9 Defendant.

10 11 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Defer Deadline for Responsive Pleading 12 (ECF No. 19). The Court has considered the Motion, the Opposition (ECF No. 22), and the Reply 13 (ECF No. 25). 14 Plaintiff and Defendant are competitors in the crossbow market. Plaintiff brought its claim 15 for patent infringement alleging Defendant is making, importing, and selling models of its crossbows 16 that infringe on Plaintiff’s patented designs. Following the filing of the Complaint, Defendant filed 17 a Motion to Transfer Venue and the instant Motion seeking to effectively stay the due date for its 18 responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Complaint until its Motion to Transfer Venue is decided by the 19 Court. 20 The Motion to Transfer Venue is brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) states: 21 “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer 22 any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district 23 or division to which all parties have consented.” Defendant argues that requiring a responsive 24 pleading is inefficient because it will trigger discovery obligations that may differ in the district to 25 which it seeks to move the case. Plaintiff responds arguing that a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 26 1404(a) does not automatically stay proceedings and that a stay in this case will not promote 27 efficiency or fairness. Plaintiff states Defendant provides no analysis of differences to which it will 1 the location Defendant seeks. Plaintiff also argues that a stay is prejudicial because the parties are 2 competitors in the crossbow market. 3 “[A] motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) does not stay the time to file a 4 responsive pleading.” Buchannon v. Associated Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-02245- 5 BEN-LL, 2021 WL 5360971, at *5 (S. D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2021) citing Mgmt. Registry, Inc. v. Batinich, 6 Case No. CV 18-1147 (JRT/TNL), 2018 WL 3621036, at *2, n.2 (D. Minn. July 30, 2018). While 7 this is a well settled rule, the Court found no standard typically applied when deciding a motion to 8 delay the due date of a responsive pleading based on a pending § 1404(a) motion. 9 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the Court may extend time upon a showing of 10 good cause if the request for extension is made before the original time to act has expired; or, after 11 the time has expired upon a showing of excusable neglect. Here, Defendant filed its Motion before 12 the time to file its responsive pleading expired. “The good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the 13 movant's diligence.” Mendez v. Fiesta Del Norte Home Owners Association, Case No. 2:15-cv-314, 14 2016 WL 1643780 at *3 (D. Nev. Apr. 26, 2016). “Good cause to extend the discovery cutoff exists 15 ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Id.(quoting 16 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992)). 17 While Defendant meets the diligence requirement, the Court also possesses broad discretion 18 to manage its own docket, which includes the inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes 19 on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. 20 Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936). The Court must consider the “possible damage” the stay 21 may cause, “the hardship or inequity” that a party may suffer if the case goes forward, and whether 22 a stay would simplify or complicate the issues, proof, and questions of law of the case. Lockyer v. 23 Mirant Corp, 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). 24 Here, the Court finds there is no benefit to staying the due date for an answer or responsive 25 pleading. Staying the initial responsive pleading only delays the commencement of the case to no 26 one’s benefit. Delay, on the other hand, creates the potential for information loss and, potentially, 27 continued patent violations. If, after the responsive pleading is filed, the parties wish to consider a 1 Court. Finally, a responsive pleading is unlikely to complicate issues, proof or questions of law of 2 the case as patent law does not differ dramatically across the U.S. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Defer Deadline for 4 Responsive Pleading (ECF No. 19) is DENIED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s 6 Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. 7 8 Dated this 31st day of March, 2022. 9 10

11 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27