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.

Winner's Sun Plastic & Electronic Shenzhen Co. Ltd. v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "B"

United States District Court, D. Nevada

December 30, 2019

WINNER'S SUN PLASTIC & ELECTRONIC SHENZHEN CO. LTD., a Chinese Limited Company. Plaintiff,
v.
THE PARTNERSHIPS and UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE "B" Defendants.

          BAYRAMOGLU LAW OFFICES LLC., NIHAT DENIZ BAYRAMOGLU, ESQ., Attorney for WINNER'S SUN PLASTIC & ELECTRONIC (SHENZHEN) CO. LTD.

          EX PARTE MOTION REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME UNDER FRCP 4.

          DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff WINNER'S SUN PLASTIC & ELECTRONIC (SHENZHEN) CO. LTD., by and through its undersigned counsel, Bayramoglu Law Offices, LLC, hereby files its Ex Parte Motion Requesting an Extension of Time under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4. Plaintiff bases this argument on all pleadings and papers filed therein, the following points and authorities, and any oral argument at the time of hearing.

         BACKGROUND

         This case was filed on June 9, 2019 to combat online counterfeiters and infringers who have and continue to infringe upon the patented technology regarding United States Patent Number 9, 995, 993 (the '"993" patent) and Winner's trade dress by and/or offering to sell unauthorized and unlicensed products, including but not limited to mobile devices to take photographs ("Selfie Sticks").

         On information and belief, the Defendants in this matter create Internet Stores to sell their products. The Defendants Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as their usernames, and suggest that the products sold are inexpensive and free from infringement of any kind. We also believe that most, if not all of the Defendants in this action reside in China. Because of their location and the fact that it may be close to impossible to actually serve the complaint on our Defendants, on the August 13, 2019, we filed a Motion for Alternative Service (ECF No. 07) in order to serve all of the Defendants through an email address. On August 14, 2019, Judge Albregts granted our Order for Alternative Service for Defendants (ECF No. 08).

         In order to obtain the email addresses from eBay and Amazon, on September 23, 2019, we filed an Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery (ECF No. 13). The court granted our order on September 27, 2019

         As Plaintiffs, we have done and continue to do our due diligence in this matter in our attempt to serve Defendants in a timely matter. We served Amazon and eBay with discovery requests in October. We received the requested information regarding defendants' names and email addresses from eBay. However we have not heard back from Amazon. We have contacted Amazon requesting names and addresses of vendors that sell infringing products but to no avail. We recently found out, though, that Amazon's counsel responsible to responding to the discovery requests is on maternity leave. Prior to learning this, Plaintiffs counsel has also been on paternity leave, therefore we ask the court to take into consideration the unusual circumstances of this case and counsel and grant our request to extend the time to serve the Complaint by 30 days. The Plaintiff is unable to serve the Defendants until Amazon provides the name and email addresses of the Defendants.

         In order for this case to move forward and do our best for our Client, we respectfully request that our Ex Parte Motion Requesting an Extension of Time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, be granted so we may move forward in this case.

         POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) outlines the procedure for a court dismissing an action for failure to effectuate service of process:

If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court-on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f), 4(h)(2), or 4(j)(1), or to service of a notice under Rule 71.1(d)(3)(A).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

         "Rule 4(m), as amended in 1993, requires a district court to grant an extension of time when the plaintiff shows good cause for the delay ... [additionally, the rule permits the district court to grant an extension even in the absence of 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.