OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 27 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Enlargement of Time to Reply to Oto… — Benworth Oto (Dkt. 29)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 4:24-cv-04840-AMO · Doc. 29 · 2024-08-30 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S ADMIN. MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO REPLY TO OTO 
ANALYTICS, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO VACATE FINAL ARBITRATION AWARD 
CASE No. 3:24-cv-4840-AMO 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 
 
 
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 
Alexander L. Cheney (SBN 302157) 
acheney@willkie.com 
333 Bush Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
(415) 858-7400 
 
Stuart R. Lombardi (pro hac vice) 
slombardi@willkie.com 
787 7th Avenue 
New York, NY 10019 
(212) 728-8000 
 
Joshua S. Levy (pro hac vice) 
jlevy@willkie.com 
1875 K Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20006-1238 
(202) 303-1000 
 
Attorneys for Petitioner 
Oto Analytics, LLC 
BENWORTH CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
OTO ANALYTICS, LLC, 
Respondent.  
 
 Case No. 3:24-cv-4840-AMO 
 
 
RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION TO 
PETITIONER’S ADMINISTRATIVE 
MOTION FOR ENLARGMENT OF TIME 
TO REPLY TO OTO ANALYTICS, 
LLC’S OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO 
VACATE FINAL ARBITRATION 
AWARD 
 
Hon. Araceli Martínez-Olguín
Case 4:24-cv-04840-AMO     Document 29     Filed 08/30/24     Page 1 of 4

 
 
1 
OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S ADMIN. MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO REPLY TO OTO 
ANALYTICS, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO VACATE FINAL ARBITRATION AWARD 
CASE No. 3:24-CV-4840-AMO 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pursuant Civil Local Rule 7-11(b), Respondent Oto Analytics, LLC (f/k/a Oto Analytics, 
Inc. d/b/a Womply) (“Womply”) submits this opposition to Petitioner Benworth Capital Partners 
LLC’s (“Benworth”) Administrative Motion (the “Administrative Motion” or “Adm. Mot.”; ECF 
No. 27), filed on August 29, 2024.  Womply respectfully requests that this Court deny 
Benworth’s request for an additional 30 days to file a 15-page reply brief in support of its 67-
page Petition to Vacate (“Petition to Vacate”) for several reasons.  
First, Benworth’s Administrative Motion fails to comply with this Court’s Standing 
Order for Civil Cases, which requires that “[a]ny party seeking an extension of a court deadline 
must seek an extension at least seven (7) days prior to the deadline.”  Standing Order for Civil 
Cases (D)(2).  This Court already admonished Benworth that “[t]he Court will not make further 
exceptions to that requirement” in the related action captioned Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth 
Capital Partners LLC, 3:24-cv-03975-AMO (N.D. Cal.) (the “Confirmation Action”) (ECF 
No. 25). 
Second, this Court denied Benworth’s request in the related Confirmation Action “to 
consolidate briefing on the vacatur and confirmation proceedings,” ordering that Benworth 
comply with the deadlines set by the Civil Local Rules and this Court’s standing orders.  This 
Court should do the same here and deny the Administrative Motion.  
Third, the issues raised in Benworth’s own Petition to Vacate are not so complex that 
Benworth requires more than a month to draft a 15-page reply brief in support of its own 
arguments.  Benworth claims that “Womply took 20 days to submit its response after receipt of 
the Petition to Vacate, not 14 days.”  (Adm. Mot. at 2.)  That is not true.  Although Benworth 
filed a redacted copy of its 67-page Petition to Vacate on August 7, 2024, Benworth did not 
provide Womply with an unredacted copy until the next day.  (Ex. 1.)1  More importantly, 
Womply did not accept service of the Petition to Vacate until August 12, 2024 (ECF No. 8), 14 
days before Womply filed its 25-page opposition to the Petition to Vacate (ECF No. 25).  
 
1 All references to “Exhibit” or “Ex.” refer to exhibits to the accompanying declaration of 
Alexander L. Cheney dated August 30, 2024. 
Case 4:24-cv-04840-AMO     Document 29     Filed 08/30/24     Page 2 of 4

 
 
2 
OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S ADMIN. MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO REPLY TO OTO 
ANALYTICS, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO VACATE FINAL ARBITRATION AWARD 
CASE No. 3:24-CV-4840-AMO 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Finally—and most troubling—the dockets and filings from the “other proceedings” that 
Benworth’s counsel claims have “deadlines” that “necessitate an enlargement of time to file its 
reply” (Adm. Mot. at 2) raise serious questions regarding the veracity of that representation.  
Benworth’s counsel claims that “the Undersigned” has an “[i]nitial [b]rief” due in the 
appeal Andrea M. Caston, et al. v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-2920, D.C. 
No. 3:23-cv-00928-TLT.  (Adm. Mot. at 2.)  The Administrative Motion’s signature block lists 
Dwayne A. Robinson, Jorge L. Piedra, and Michael R. Lorigas of Kozyak Tropin & 
Throckmorton (“KTT”), and David C. Girard and Simon S. Grille from Girard Sharp LLP.  
However, the docket from the Caston case does not identify either of these law firms as having 
appeared in the case.  And, while lawyers from KTT have been listed as counsel in that case, 
none of them are the KTT attorneys in this case.  (See Exs. 2–3.) 
Benworth’s counsel also claims that it has “[o]ral [a]rgument” in Cato Corporation, et al. 
v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Case No. COA23-305 (Adm. Mot. at 2), but the docket 
from that case indicates that the “Argue Date” is not until October 22, 2024.  (Ex. 4 at 1.)  It 
strains credulity that an October 3, 2024 due date for a 15-page reply brief, which Benworth 
requests, would interfere less with an October 22 oral argument than the current September 3, 
2024 deadline. 
Benworth’s counsel further claims that it has a “[r]eply [b]rief” in Benes v. de la Aguilera, 
No. 3D24-0152 (Fla. 3d DCA).  While that brief is due on August 30, 2024, Mr. Robinson of 
KTT—who signed the Administrative Motion and the supporting declaration—has not appeared 
as counsel in that case.  (Ex. 5.)  Although Mr. Piedra and Mr. Lorigas are listed as counsel in 
that case, Mr. Robinson—who has signed nearly all of Benworth’s filings in this proceeding and 
in the related Confirmation Action—has not appeared in the Benes case.  Id. 
For these reasons, Womply respectfully requests that the Court deny Benworth’s 
Administrative Motion. 
 
 
Case 4:24-cv-04840-AMO     Document 29     Filed 08/30/24     Page 3 of 4

 
 
3 
OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S ADMIN. MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO REPLY TO OTO 
ANALYTICS, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO VACATE FINAL ARBITRATION AWARD 
CASE No. 3:24-CV-4840-AMO 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
Dated: August 30, 2024 
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 
 
By: /s/ Alexander L. Cheney 
 
Alexander L. Cheney 
Stuart R. Lombardi (pro hac vice) 
Joshua S. Levy (pro hac vice) 
 
Attorneys for Petitioner 
Oto Analytics, LLC
Case 4:24-cv-04840-AMO     Document 29     Filed 08/30/24     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.433897.29.0.pdf

Size

385,249 bytes

SHA-256

35a0582624369a8a52ee793f10eb10bbf710c1afa9ff5d477932786178c00b45

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.433897.29.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)