Johnson v. Charter Communications, Inc
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-06135
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Johnson v. Charter Communications, Judge Gilliam granted defendants’ motion for a 14-day extension to file replies on their pending motions.
Charter Communications, Inc. and Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC received additional time to file replies supporting their motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss; the plaintiffs’ opposition to the extension was not adopted.
What happened
Johnson v. Charter Communications, Inc. concerns defendants’ request for more time to respond to plaintiffs’ opposition papers. The requested extension applied to replies supporting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss.
Defendants asked to move the reply deadline from January 28, 2022, to February 11, 2022. They said their lead attorney and his two young children had unexpectedly become ill with COVID-19 and that the extension would not affect the scheduled March 31 hearing or prejudice plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to a seven-day extension but not the full 14 days.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. found good cause and granted defendants’ motion. The defendants’ reply deadline was therefore extended to February 11, 2022.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Charter Communications, Inc · No. 4:21-cv-06135
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 21, 2022
Background
Defendants Charter Communications, Inc. and Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC moved for a 14-day extension of the deadline to file replies supporting two pending motions: a motion to compel arbitration and a motion to dismiss. Under the existing schedule, defendants’ replies were due January 28, 2022, and the motions were set for a March 31, 2022 hearing.
Arguments about the Extension
Defendants stated that their lead counsel had unexpectedly become ill with COVID-19, as had his two young children, leaving him without childcare while the replies were being prepared. Defendants argued that the extension would not change the case schedule or prejudice plaintiffs because no scheduling order had been entered and the March 31 hearing would remain unchanged. Defendants also stated that plaintiffs’ counsel had agreed to a seven-day extension but refused to agree to the additional seven days.
Ruling
The court stated that good cause existed and granted defendants’ motion. The deadline for defendants’ replies was extended to February 11, 2022. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order on January 21, 2022.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.