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.

Walker v. Intelli-Heart Services Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 23, 2019

TERRANCE WALKER, an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
INTELLI-HEART SERVICES, INC.; DANNY WEISBURG; VANNESSA PARSON; and DANIEL GERMAIN. Defendants.

          WILLIAM J. GEDDES KRISTEN R. GEDDES THE GEDDES LAW FIRM, P.C.Attorneys for Defendant Intelli-Heart Services, Inc.

          THE GEDDES LAW FIRM, P.C. KRISTEN R. GEDDES Attorneys for Defendant Intelli-Heart Services, Inc.

          DEFENDANT INTELLI-HEART S ERVICES, INC'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO ANSWER OR RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [FIRST REQUEST]

         COMES NOW Defendant Intelli-Heart Services, Inc. ("IHS"), by and through its counsel William J. Geddes, Esq., and Kristen R. Geddes, Esq., of The Geddes Law Firm, P.C, and herein files Defendant Intelli-Heart Services, he's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Answer or Respond to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint [First Request]. This motion is based upon the following Points and Authorities, the pleadings and papers on file in this action, and any oral arguments the Court may entertain at any hearing set for this matter.

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This federal diversity-jurisdiction action asserts state-tort claims arising from an unauthorized and clandestine agreement between Plaintiff, Terrance Walker, and James Winters, a distributor for Defendant IHS. See generally, Second Amended Complaint, ECF 136.

         In his Amended Complaint (ECF 004), Plaintiff asserted a claim against IHS for tortious interference with Walker's contractual relationship with Winters. Id. IHS appeared in this matter and answered Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, denying Plaintiffs allegations. Amended Answer to Amended Complaint, ECF 026.

         On April 9, 2019, the Court granted Walker leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (ECF 135), and the Second Amended Complaint was filed that date. ECF 136. Accordingly, IHS, who is already a party to this action, was served on that date.[1] Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(3) IHS' deadline to answer or respond to the Second Amended Complaint is April 23, 2019.

         The Second Amended Complaint added three new defendants and four additional causes of action. See ECF 136. On information and belief, Defendants Vanessa Parsons and Danny Weisberg were served with Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint on April 18, 2019, making their deadline to answer or respond, May 9, 2019. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B).

         II. ARGUMENT

         A. Good Cause Exists to Grant the Instant Enlargement of Time. Which IS Not Made For The Purpose of Delay.

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) addresses extending time, stating:

(1) In General.
When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good ...

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.