Solas Oled Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd. et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-6:2019-cv-00236

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 41 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim, 43 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim by Solas OLED Ltd.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION SOLAS OLED LTD., an Irish corporation, Plaintiff, Case No. 6:19-cv-00236-ADA v. LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; LG ELECTRONICS, INC., a Korean corpora- tion; and SONY CORPORATION, a Japanese corporation, Defendants. UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.'S AND LG ELECTRONICS, INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), Plaintiff Solas OLED Limited ("Solas") respectfully moves to extend to November 27, 2019 the deadline to answer the counterclaims brought by De- fendants LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Electronics, Inc. (collectively "LG"). Counsel for LG has indicated that it does not oppose this motion. LG filed answers with counterclaims on October 28, 2019. (Dkts. 41 and 43.) On the same date, Defendant Sony Corporation ("Sony") filed an answer without counterclaims. (Dkt. 45.) Un- der Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(B), Solas's deadline to answer LG's counterclaims was November 18, 2019. Counsel for Solas docketed the deadline to answer LG's counterclaims. However, when the attorney responsible for this deadline reviewed the court's docket, the attorney saw that Sony's ! answer did not contain counterclaims and did not notice that LG—represented by many of the same counsel as Sony—had included counterclaims in its answers. The attorney mistakenly con- cluded that no answer to counterclaims was required. On November 26, 2019, counsel for Solas was reviewing the docket and noticed the counter- claims and lack of answers to those counterclaims. Counsel for Solas emailed counsel for LG that evening, asking if LG would oppose a motion extending Solas's answer deadline to November 27, 2019. On the morning of November 27, 2019, counsel for LG indicated it would not oppose Solas's motion to extend. The standard for extending a deadline under these circumstances is excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Factors considered in determining whether neglect is excusable include (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing parties, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partn., 507 U.S. 380, 391, 395 (1993). In this case, there is no danger of prejudice to LG from extending the deadline. LG has not moved for default judgment and appears not to have been aware that the deadline had been missed until counsel for Solas brought the issue to LG's attention. Solas had previously agreed to two extensions of LG's deadlines to answer Solas's complaint, and Solas expects that LG would have agreed to a reciprocal extension of Solas's answer deadline had Solas requested it. (Dkts. 22 and 38.) Importantly, counsel for LG has indicated it does not oppose this motion. The length of the delay is nine days, a relatively short delay in the context of the pleadings. The case is at an early stage, with the case management conference scheduled for December 6, d 2019. Solas is not aware of any other deadline that will need to change as a result of this extension or of any other impacts this extension will have on the case going forward. Here, the delay was within the reasonable control of the movant. However, that fact is not dispositive given that the other factors weigh strongly in favor of granting an extension and given the policy disfavoring default judgments. See Harper Macleod Solicitors v. Keaty & Keaty, 260 F.3d 389, 393 (5th Cir. 2001) ("Federal courts generally disfavor default judgments, preferring to resolve disputes according to their merits.") Finally, Solas has acted in good faith. The error that led to Solas not filing timely answers was an honest, though regrettable, mistake in reading the docket. Solas did not benefit from delaying its answers, and LG was not harmed. Upon recognizing its error, counsel for Solas promptly reached out to counsel for LG and promptly filed this motion and its answers. Because LG does not oppose the requested extension and because the factors set forth in Pioneer indicated that Solas's neglect was exclusable, Solas respectfully requests that the Court grant Solas the requested extension. Dated: November 27, 2019 /s/ Neil A. Rubin Marc Fenster CA State Bar No. 181067 Reza Mirzaie CA State Bar No. 246953 Neil A. Rubin CA State Bar No. 250761 Kent N. Shum CA State Bar No. 259189 RUSS AUGUST & KABAT 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: 310-826-7474 Email: Email: Email: Email: h Sean A. Luner CA State Bar No. 165443 Gregory S. Dovel CA State Bar No. 135387 Jonas B. Jacobson CA State Bar No. 269912 DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: 310-656-7066 Email: Email: Email: T. John Ward, Jr. TX State Bar No. 00794818 Claire Abernathy Henry TX State Bar No. 24053063 Andrea L. Fair TX State Bar No. 24078488 WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC PO Box 1231 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone: 903-757-6400 Email: Email: Email: ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, SOLAS OLED LTD. n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 27th day of November 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing, with an attached proposed order, with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the counsel of record. /s/ Neil A. Rubin q