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

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 27, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01832
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 F. Christopher Austin, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6559 2 caustin@weidemiller.com WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. 3 10655 Park Run Drive, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89144 4 Tel: (702) 382-4804 Fax: (702) 382-4805 5 Attorneys for Defendants 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 SATA GmbH & Co. KG, a German 10 Corporation, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01832-GMN-EJY 11 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 12 EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO FILE v. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 13 DISMISS Qingdao Hanspray New Material 14 Technology Co. a Chinese Company; (First Request) Qingdao Hanbo Plastic Technology Co. Ltd., 15 a Chinese Company; and Hanspray 16 Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., a Chinese Company, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) and Local Rule 1A 6-1, Plaintiff 20 SATA GmbH & Co. KG (“Plaintiff” or “SATA”) and Defendants Qingdao Hanspray New 21 Material Technology Co. a Chinese Company; Qingdao Hanbo Plastic Technology Co. Ltd., a 22 Chinese Company; and Hanspray Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., a Chinese Company, (collectively 23 “Defendants” or “Hanspray Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel of record, 24 hereby agree and stipulate to a 14-day extension of time for Defendants to file and serve their 25 Reply brief in support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 15) from the current deadline of 26 January 26, 2023, up to and including February 9, 2023. This is the first request by the parties for 27 such an extension. / / / 1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) provides in pertinent part that “[w]hen an act may 2 or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) … if 3 request is made, before the time or its extension expires ….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Indeed, “[u]nder 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the court may, for good cause, extend a deadline if a request 5 is made “before the original time or its extension expires …. The Ninth Circuit has equated good 6 cause with the exercise of due diligence.” Maxson v. H&R Block, Inc., Case No.: 2:16-cv-00152- 7 APG-CWH, 2017 WL 1078633, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 21, 2017) (citations omitted). 8 This stipulation is made before the expiration of the “original time” and good cause exists 9 for the stipulated extension to provide Defendants with an opportunity to consult with their 10 undersigned Defense counsel in this matter. Defendants who are all Chinese entities are currently 11 closed in connection with the Chinese New Year Holiday and will not be able to consult with 12 counsel with regard to the Reply to the Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF 20) 13 in this patent infringement action until Defendants’ business re-open next week. Further, because 14 such communications have, and likely will continue to, require the employment of translation 15 services both for oral consultation and document review, such additional time is required. 16 / / / 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 For the foregoing reasons, the parties hereby stipulate to extend the deadline for the 2 || Defendants to file its Reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss to February 9, 2023. 3 DATED: January 26, 2023. 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 ler.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 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:__January 27,2023 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 & MILLER, LTD. PARK RUN DR.,