Summary
denying motion to dismiss where defendant's argument with respect to the scope of assignment provision in contract presented "questions of contract interpretation to be decided on summary judgment or at trial, with the benefits of discovery and a full evidentiary record"
Summary of this case from Coloplast A/S v. Oakwell Distribution Inc.Opinion
No. C 11-01215 WHA
10-12-2011
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION-PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION WELFARE PLAN BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH GATE AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTER, LLC, a California limited liability company; JEFFREY T. HO, M.D., an individual; STEWART GOLDSTEIN, M.D., an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
The stipulated request for a second extension of time for defendant Goldstein to file his response to the first amended complaint and any cross-compliant adding parties is DENIED. A desire for "additional time to evaluate and respond to the [settlement] proposal" is not good cause for the requested extension (Dkt. No. 76). Litigation must proceed in a timely fashion regardless of parallel efforts to settle the claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE