SATA GmbH & Co. KG v. Qingdao Hanspray New Material Technology Co., Ltd.

Opinion

F. Christopher Austin, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6559 caustin@weidemiller.com WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. 10655 Park Run Drive, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Tel: (702) 382-4804 Fax: (702) 382-4805 Attorneys for Defendants SATA GmbH & Co. KG, a German Corporation, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01832-GMN-EJY Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO v. RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT Qingdao Hanspray New Material (First Request) Technology Co. a Chinese Company; Qingdao Hanbo Plastic Technology Co. Ltd., a Chinese Company; and Hanspray Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., a Chinese Company, Defendants. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) and Local Rule 1A 6-1, Plaintiff SATA GmbH & Co. KG (“Plaintiff” or “SATA”) and Defendants Qingdao Hanspray New Material Technology Co. a Chinese Company; Qingdao Hanbo Plastic Technology Co. Ltd., a Chinese Company; and Hanspray Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., a Chinese Company, (collectively “Defendants” or “Hanspray Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby agree and stipulate to a thirty-day extension of time for Defendants to file and serve their answers or other responses to the Complaint from the current deadline of September 22, 2022, up to and including December 22, 2022. This is the first request by the parties for such an extension. / / / / / / Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) provides in pertinent part that “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) … if request is made, before the time or its extension expires ….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Indeed, “[u]nder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the court may, for good cause, extend a deadline if a request is made “before the original time or its extension expires …. The Ninth Circuit has equated good cause with the exercise of due diligence.” Maxson v. H&R Block, Inc., Case No.: 2:16-cv-00152- APG-CWH, 2017 WL 1078633, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 21, 2017) (citations omitted). This stipulation is made before the expiration of the “original time” and good cause exists for the stipulated extension to provide Defendants with an opportunity to consult with their undersigned Defense counsel in this matter. This is a complex patent infringement action filed against foreign defendants all of which reside in China. Defendants only retained the undersigned counsel a few days ago and will need additional time to consult with counsel. This task has been rendered more complicated by the fact that such communications have and likely will continue to require the employment of translation services both for oral consultation and document review. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 For the foregoing reasons, the parties hereby stipulate to extend the deadline for the 2 Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint to December 22, 2022. 3 DATED: November 21, 2022. 4 IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED: 5 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. 6 By: /s/Steven A. Caloiaro By: /s/ F. Christopher Austin Steven A. Caloiaro (NVB 12344) F. Christopher Austin, Esq. (NVB 6559) 100 W. Liberty Street, Suite 940 10655 Park Run Drive, Suite 100 Reno, NV 89501 Las Vegas, NV 89144 8 scaloiaro @ dickinsonwright.com cau □□□ weidemiller-com -CoM 9 775-343-7500 Attorneys for Defendants, Qingdao Hanspray 10 Kevin D. Everage (NVB 15913) New Material Technology Co.; Qingdao 3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 800 Hanbo Plastic Technology Co. Ltd.; and 11 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Hanspray Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. D keverage @ dickinsonwright.com 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff SATA GmbH & Co. KG 14 15 16 IT ISSO ORDERED: 17 18 UNITED STA AGISTRATE JUDGE 19 DATED: _November 22,2072 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 & MILLER, LTD. PARK RUN DR.,