Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 107 views

    13 - Response To Motion For Extension of Time

    Uploaded by

    Ripoff Report
    Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures filed a response opposing the defendant Raymond Mobrez and Iliana Llaneras' motion for a two-month extension to answer the complaint. Xcentric had no objection to a two-week extension, as discussed in an email to Mobrez, but opposed the lengthy two-month request. The basis for the two-month extension was that the defendants did not have legal representation, but Xcentric argued this did not constitute good cause for such a long delay.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    13 - Response To Motion For Extension of Time

    Uploaded by

    Ripoff Report
    107 views6 pages
    Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures filed a response opposing the defendant Raymond Mobrez and Iliana Llaneras' motion for a two-month extension to answer the complaint. Xcentric had no objection to a two-week extension, as discussed in an email to Mobrez, but opposed the lengthy two-month request. The basis for the two-month extension was that the defendants did not have legal representation, but Xcentric argued this did not constitute good cause for such a long delay.

    Original Description:

    Pleadings filed in malicious prosecution action against attorney Lisa Borodkin.

    Original Title

    13 - Response to Motion for Extension of Time

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures filed a response opposing the defendant Raymond Mobrez and Iliana Llaneras' motion for a two-month extension to answer the complaint. Xcentric had no objection to a two-week extension, as discussed in an email to Mobrez, but opposed the lengthy two-month request. The basis for the two-month extension was that the defendants did not have legal representation, but Xcentric argued this did not constitute good cause for such a long delay.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    107 views6 pages

    13 - Response To Motion For Extension of Time

    Uploaded by

    Ripoff Report
    Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures filed a response opposing the defendant Raymond Mobrez and Iliana Llaneras' motion for a two-month extension to answer the complaint. Xcentric had no objection to a two-week extension, as discussed in an email to Mobrez, but opposed the lengthy two-month request. The basis for the two-month extension was that the defendants did not have legal representation, but Xcentric argued this did not constitute good cause for such a long delay.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 6

    Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 13

    Filed 08/29/11 Page 1 of 6

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
    GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 3941 E. CHANDLER BLVD., #106-243 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048

    David S. Gingras, #021097 Gingras Law Office, PLLC 3941 E. Chandler Blvd., #106-243 Phoenix, AZ 85048 Tel.: (480) 668-3623 Fax: (480) 248-3196 David@GingrasLaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures, LLC

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

    XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. LISA JEAN BORODKIN, et al., Defendants.

    Case No: 11-CV-1426-PHX-GMS PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT

    14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

    Plaintiff XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC (Plaintiff or Xcentric) respectfully submits the following response to Defendant RAYMOND MOBREZ and ILIANA LLANERAS (the Mobrez Defendants) Motion For Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. #12). For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the motion. As explained in the Complaint (Doc. #1), this is a diversity action seeking damages for malicious prosecution/wrongful of civil proceedings1 based on a lawsuit wrongfully commenced by the Mobrez Defendants against Xcentric in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 2010. The underlying lawsuit was resolved in favor of Xcentric by Order dated May 4, 2011. See Asia Economic Inst. v.
    The Arizona Revised Jury Instructions (4th ed.) (Intention TortsInstruction 19) use the term Malicious Prosecution to refer to claims based on the wrongful misuse of either civil or criminal proceedings, while the Restatement (Second) of Torts 674 calls the tort Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings.
    1

    PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT

    Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 13

    Filed 08/29/11 Page 2 of 6

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
    GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 3941 E. CHANDLER BLVD., #106-243 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048

    Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 2011 WL 2469822 (C.D.Cal. 2011). commenced shortly thereafter on July 18, 2011.

    This action was

    In their motion the Mobrez Defendants assert that they attempted to contact undersigned counsel to request an extension of time to submit their Answer, but Counsel did not return any of the calls. This assertion is not true. On August 15 and 16, 2011, Mr. Mobrez left two telephone messages for undersigned counsel which were returned on the morning of August 17, 2011. In

    addition, undersigned counsel sent an email to Mr. Mobrez on August 17, 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In this email, undersigned counsel explained that Xcentric had no objection to providing the Mobrez Defendants with a two-week extension of time to Answer (Mr. Mobrez had requested a three-week extension). Noting that Mr. Mobrez was served on July 25, 2011 and that his Answer was due on or before August 16, 2011, undersigned counsel informed Mr. Mobrez that Xcentric was willing to agree to provide Defendants with an extension of time until August 31, 2011 to accommodate his request for additional time to find and retain counsel. For the Courts information, Xcentrics

    14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

    position remains unchanged; it has no objection to an extension of no later than August 31, 2011. Rather than accepting this offer, Mr. Mobrez filed the present motion which now seeks a two-month extension of time to appear in this matter. Plaintiff opposes this motion. The only basis for this request is that Mr. Mobrez and his wife are not yet represented by counsel and that certain other defendants (specifically, the attorneys who represented the Mobrez Defendants in the California action which gave rise to this matter) have not yet been served. These points fail to demonstrate good cause for such an extremely lengthy (twomonth) delay in the commencement of this matter. Indeed, as noted above, Mr. Mobrez was served with the Summons and Complaint on July 25, 2011. Thus, he has already had more than a full month within which to locate counsel. Providing an additional two 2
    PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT

    Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 13

    Filed 08/29/11 Page 3 of 6

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
    GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 3941 E. CHANDLER BLVD., #106-243 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048

    months would be extremely prejudicial to Xcentric insofar as it would serious delay Xcentrics efforts to obtain redress for the malicious, illegal, and wrongful conduct of Defendants. For that reason, and because Mr. Mobrez has not offered any legitimate basis for such a lengthy delay, his request should be denied. DATED August 29, 2011. GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC /S/ David S. Gingras David S. Gingras Attorney for Plaintiff

    14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
    PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT

    Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 13

    Filed 08/29/11 Page 4 of 6

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
    GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 3941 E. CHANDLER BLVD., #106-243 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I hereby certify that on August 29, 2011 I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerks Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following: Raymond Mobrez Iliana Llaneras 11766 Wilshire Blvd., #260 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Lisa J. Borodkin Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 6400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 And a courtesy copy of the foregoing delivered to: HONORABLE G. MURRY SNOW United States District Court Sandra Day OConnor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 622 401 West Washington Street, SPC 80 Phoenix, AZ 85003-215 /s/David S. Gingras

    14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

    4
    PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT

    Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 13

    Filed 08/29/11 Page 5 of 6

    Exhibit A

    Page 1 of 1

    Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 13


    David Gingras
    From: Sent: To: Cc: David Gingras [david@gingraslaw.com] Wednesday, August 17, 2011 11:27 AM 'raymond@asiaecon.org' 'Maria Crimi Speth'

    Filed 08/29/11 Page 6 of 6

    Subject: Xcentric Ventures / Asia Economic Inst. Raymond, Maria told me that you called her recently and requested an extension of time to respond to the lawsuit filed against you by Xcentric. As a matter of course, an extension of time is OK with me, but three weeks seems far too long. As such, I am willing to agree to provide an extension of two weeks which should be more that sufficient for you to contact and retain counsel in Arizona. NOTE although I have not yet received the affidavit of service back from our process server, my understanding is that you were served on Monday July 25th. Based on my calculation, this would have made your answer due yesterday, August 16. If you were served later than that, then obviously you would have additional time based on whatever date you were actually served. However, to avoid any uncertainty about the dates, I will agree that your extension will expire two weeks from today which means you must respond to the lawsuit by Wednesday, August 31, 2011. Finally, please respond to confirm that you received this email. I understand that apparently Asia Economic Institute is no longer in business, but this is the only email address I was able to locate for you. David S. Gingras, Esq. David@GingrasLaw.com Tel.: (480) 668-3623 Fax: (480) 248-3196

    8/29/2011

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy