Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. Morley Tatro

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 9 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

C.D. Cal.November 25, 2015

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL ADMISSION COUNCIL, INC., Plaintiff, v. MORLEY TATRO, d/b/a CAMBRIDGE LSAT Defendant. Civil Action No. 15:5219-MAK MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff Law School Admission Council, Inc. (“LSAC”) requests that the Court extend the deadline for LSAC to respond to the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Morley Tatro (“Defendant”) until December 14, 2015, or 11 days from the date on which Defendant fully responds to LSAC’s jurisdictional discovery requests, whichever is later. The reasons for this request are as follows: 1. On October 29, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. See Dkt. No. 9. 2. On November 5, 2015, the Court ordered that (a) LSAC serve jurisdictional discovery upon Defendant by November 6, (b) Defendant “fully respond” to this discovery no later than November 23, 2015, and (c) LSAC submit its response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on December 4, 2015 - 11 days after it received Defendant’s discovery responses. See Dkt. No. 13 ¶ 2(a), (b) & (c). 3. On November 6, LSAC complied with the Court’s Order and served upon Defendant jurisdictional-related Requests for Production, Interrogatories, and Requests for Admission. Case 2:16-cv-00062-RSWL-E Document 16 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:64 2 4. On November 23, however, Defendant did not respond to LSAC’s jurisdictional discovery. Instead, LSAC’s counsel received an email on that date from Eric Menhart of the Lexero Law Firm informing LSAC that Defendant had retained Mr. Menhart as counsel, that Defendant would not be responding to LSAC’s jurisdictional discovery by the Court-ordered deadline, and that defendant is not opposed to any extension that LSAC seeks as a result of defendant’s actions. 5. LSAC’s counsel promptly followed up with Mr. Menhart via voicemail and email. In response, Mr. Menhart has informed via e-mail that he “believe[s] he will have a response” to LSAC’s discovery by December 2. 6. Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order impacts LSAC’s ability to adequately respond to the Motion to Dismiss by the December 4 deadline. As such, so that LSAC can review the Court-ordered jurisdictional discovery in time to adequately prepare its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, LSAC requests that the Court extend the deadline for LSAC to file its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss until the later of December 14, 2015 or 11 days from the date that Defendant provides responses to LSAC’s jurisdictional discovery.1 7. Mr. Menhart has represented that he does not oppose this motion. A proposed order is attached. 1 LSAC does not waive and expressly reserves all arguments regarding the untimeliness of Defendant’s responses to LSAC’s jurisdictional discovery requests and all consequences flowing therefrom. Case 2:16-cv-00062-RSWL-E Document 16 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:65 3 Date: November 25, 2015 Respectfully submitted, s/John V. Gorman John V. Gorman (Pa. Bar I.D. No. 80631) jgorman@morganlewis.com MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: +1.215.963.5000 Fax: +1.215.963.5001 Attorneys for Plaintiff Law School Admission Council, Inc. Case 2:16-cv-00062-RSWL-E Document 16 Filed 11/25/15 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:66 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date indicated below, I electronically filed and served the foregoing document via the Court’s ECF system. A copy of the foregoing document is available for viewing and downloading on the Court’s ECF System. I also certify that I e-mailed the following persons: Morley Tatro d/b/a Cambridge LSAT rippinradio@yahoo.com Eric Menhart p17p1680a345@Lexero.com Date: November 25, 2015 s/John V. Gorman John V. Gorman Case 2:16-cv-00062-RSWL-E Document 16 Filed 11/25/15 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:67