Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
12.23.12 Motion for an Extension (ECF)

12.23.12 Motion for an Extension (ECF)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4|Likes:
Published by Jordan Rushie

More info:

Published by: Jordan Rushie on Dec 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/29/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANI
Land Rover, a foreign company,
Plaintiff  
, v.Rover Repair’s of Collingdale, LLC,
Defendant 
.Case No. 2:12-cv-05036-ABHon. Anita B. Brody
Order Granting the Defend-ant's Motion of Time for anExtension of Time to Respondto Plaintiff's ComplaintORDER
 After considering the Defendant's Motion for an Extension of Time, and the Plaintiff's response, it is hereby ordered that the motionis
GRANTED
. Defendant will le a reply to Plaintiff's Complaintwithin 45 days entry of this Order.It is further ordered that the Plaintiff will pay $500.00 to an ap-propriate charity of the Defendant's choosing within 10 days entry of this Order. Plaintiff's counsel is also ordered to review the Code of Ci- vility and Working Rules of Professionalism
1
, and to follow theguidelines set forth therein.
SO ORDERED
this _________ day of ___________________,2013.
 _________________________________________ 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEHON. ANITA B. BRODY 
1
 
These are both available online on the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's website athttp://www.paed.uscourts.gov/us08001.asp.
Case 2:12-cv-05036-AB Document 17 Filed 12/23/12 Page 1 of 15
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANI
Land Rover, a foreign company,
Plaintiff  
, v.Rover Repair’s of Collingdale, LLC,
Defendant 
.Case No. 2:12-cv-05036-ABHon. Anita B. Brody
Motion for an Extension of Timeto Reply to Plaintiff's Complaint
Motion for An Extension of Time to Reply to Plaintiff'sComplaint
1.The Defendant was previously employed by the LandRover dealership in Wayne, Pennsylvania.
2.
In June, 2008, the Defendant began doing business asRover Repair’s of Collingdale, LLC.
2
The Defendant operated openly,advertising the name of his business, and putting up a website inNovember 2008 at <roverrepairs.com>.3.Despite the Defendants operation for more than fouryears under this name, Land Rover, International (for unknown reas-ons that will be explored if discovery commences) decided to bring itslegal hammer down upon this small independent Rover repair busi-ness.
4.
Unable to afford counsel, Rover Repair’s of Collingdale’sowner, Frank Dalahan, sought to represent his business
 pro se 
.
5.
Dalahan was unaware of the rule that a business entitymay not be represented
 pro se 
, and led a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 9)6.The Plaintiff opposed this Motion. (Dkt. 10).
2
 
The Defendant uses the possessive in its company name.
1
Case 2:12-cv-05036-AB Document 17 Filed 12/23/12 Page 2 of 15
 
7.
 As part of its opposition, the Plaintiff correctly raised theissue that the
 pro se 
Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10) should be stricken.
8.
On December 21, 2012, the undersigned counsel agreed torepresent Rover Repair’s of Collingdale.
3
9.On December 21, 2012, counsel for the Defendant reachedout to counsel for the Plaintiff, seeking to streamline the litigation andseeking to minimize the amount of motion practice in this matter.
10.
Specically, counsel for the Defendant suggested that theDefendant would stipulate to the relief that the Plaintiff sought – thestriking of the improperly led
 pro se 
Motion to Dismiss. See Exhibit A.11.In exchange, the Defendant’s counsel requested that theparties stipulate to a date by which a responsive pleading would beled. See Exhibit A.12.The Defendant believed that a 45 to 60 day period of timewould be appropriate. For starters, even if the Defendant simplywaited for the Court to rule on the pending Motion, it was anticipatedthat an Order would not likely issue for at least 30 days. Additionally,it was presumed that if the Court did grant the Plaintiff’s requested re-lief, that the Court would give the Defendant a reasonable amount of time in which to le a responsive pleading.
3
 
The Defendant did not become more wealthy, and thus able to afford representationin the intervening months. But, the undersigned have accepted representation on ahybrid basis: they have accepted representation for a small fee with the remainderof their fees to be collected on a contingent fee basis. It is the Defendant’s positionthat these fees will be properly awarded to the Defendant under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 orthrough other means.
2
Case 2:12-cv-05036-AB Document 17 Filed 12/23/12 Page 3 of 15

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->