Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

C-A Acquisition Corp. v. Hyperion Entertainment C.V.B.A.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

August 23, 2019

C-A ACQUISITION CORP. and CLOANTO CORPORATION, Plaintiffs,
v.
HYPERION ENTERTAINMENT C.V.B.A., Defendant.

          Gordon E. R. Troy Pro Hac Vice Gordon E. R. Troy, PC Michael G. Atkins, Atkins Intellectual Property, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs C-A Acquistion Corp. and Cloanto Corporation

          EX PARTE MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, HOLDING RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE, AND FILE JOINT STATUS REPORT

          RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pursuant to Pursuant to LCR 7(d)(1), Plaintiffs C-A Acquisition Corp. and Cloanto Corporation (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) move the Court for an order to extend for sixty (60) days the following times set forth in the Court's Order of August 9, 2019 (“August 9th Order”):

Joint Status Report

9/20/2019

Rule 26(f) Conference

9/6/2019

Initial Disclosures

9/13/2019

         Plaintiffs so move because Defendant Hyperion Entertainment CVBA (“Hyperion”) has declined to accept service of the Summons and Complaint in this action, and service of process is being made in accordance with the Hague Convention for service of foreign entities.

         On May 8, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel Michael Atkins asked Robert Carlson, counsel of record for Hyperion in Cloanto Corporation v. Hyperion, 18-cv-00381-RSM, whether Hyperion would agree to waive service in this action. Mr. Carlson did not respond. On May 17, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel Gordon E. R. Troy asked Sarah Elsden, also counsel of record for Hyperion in the earlier case, whether Hyperion would agree to waive service in this action. On May 22, 2019, Ms. Elsden advised Plaintiffs' counsel that her firm was not authorized by Hyperion to do so.

         On July 17, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel sent the Amended Complaint to Plaintiffs' counsel in Belgium for translation and service. Belgian counsel has advised that instructions for service were given to the bailiff on July 31, 2019, but as of the date of this Motion, service has not been confirmed. On August 12, 2019, Ms. Elsden advised Plaintiffs' counsel that her firm had not been retained to represent Hyperion in this action.

         Consequently, no appearance has been filed by anyone on behalf of Hyperion. Plaintiffs propose that the dates set forth in the August 9th Order be extended by sixty days as follows:

Deadline/Event

Current

Proposed

Rule 26(f) Conference

9/6/2019

11/5/2019

Initial Disclosures

9/13/2019

11/12/2019

Joint Status Report

9/20/2019

11/19/2019

         Plaintiffs' request is not sought for purposes of delay, but rather due to the fact that Hyperion has declined to accept service. Plaintiffs believe that service of the Summons and Amended Complaint was effected on August 20, 2019, but counsel has not yet received a certificate of service from the Belgian bailiff.

         ORDER

         Based on the facts set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Time for Filing Initial Disclosures, Holding Rule 26(f) Conference, and File Joint Status Report (the “Motion”), the Court finds good cause exists to extend each of the dates by sixty (60) days, as requested in the Motion. Accordingly, the Rule 26(f) Conference shall be held by no later than ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.