Unopposed Motion For Additional Extension Of Time

Date: 2020-05-06

Summary

An Unopposed Motion for Additional Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint, filed June 1, 2020 as Document 40 by defendant TAC2 Global, LLC in 3M Company v. TAC2 Global LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-1003-T-35CPT, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The motion describes the eight-count complaint, which asserts FDUTPA, Florida trademark and dilution, common-law unfair competition and Lanham Act claims. It states that the defendant was served May 6, 2020, that the court earlier extended the response deadline through June 2, 2020 [D.E. 37], and that the parties have jointly asked to continue the June 3, 2020 preliminary injunction hearing while they engage in settlement communications. Citing Rule 6(b), it asks for a 10-day extension to June 12, 2020, and certifies that plaintiff's counsel agreed.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Unopposed Motion For Additional Extension Of Time.” Original at ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov, dated 2020-05-06. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2020-05-06-t-35cpt-v-tac2-global-llc-030af31f-1/, SHA-256 030af31f8646587b6f4fabe660de07453514fe67d291bff71c98554a9d25d01c.

Full text

Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT Document 40 Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID 413

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

3M COMPANY

Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 8:20-cv-1003-T-35CPT
v.

TAC2 GLOBAL LLC

Defendant.
/

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL EXTENSION OF TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Defendant, TAC2 GLOBAL, LLC (“TAC2” or “Defendant”), pursuant to Rule 6 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves for an additional extension

to the deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint [D.E. 1]. In support of this motion, Defendant states the

following:

1. This is action consists of an Eight Count complaint asserting the following causes

of action: Violation of Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”);

Trademark Infringement Under Fla. Stat. 495.131; Dilution under Fla. Stat. §495.151; Unfair

Competition under Florida Common Law; False Advertising Under the Lanham Act; Trademark

Infringement under the Lanham Act; Unfair Competition, False Endorsement, False Association,

and False Designation of Origin Under the Lanham Act; and Trademark Dilution under the

Lanham Act.

2. Defendant was served with this lawsuit on May 6, 2020.

3. Pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant’s response to

Plaintiff’s Complaint was due on May 27, 2020.

1
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT Document 40 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID 414

4 On May 26, 2020, Defendant filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to

Respond to Complaint [D.E. 36] and stated Defendant’s counsel needed more time to respond due to

handling the response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.

5. This Court granted Defendant’s request for an extension up to and through June 2, 2020,

to respond to the Complaint [D.E. 37].

6. The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is scheduled for June 3, 2020.

Simultaneously with this Motion the parties have filed a Joint Motion to Continue Hearing on Preliminary

Injunction asking that the hearing be continued for at least 14 days because the parties are engaged in

meaningful settlement communications and are hoping to resolve the entire case or at least the preliminary

injunction issues without the need for an additional hearing.

7. Defendant is requesting an additional 10 day extension of time to respond to the Complaint,

until June 12, 2020 while the parties discuss potential resolution of the claims.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 6(b) provides that the Court may, for good cause extend the

time for an action upon motion of a party prior to the original deadline. As stated above, Defendant has

provided good cause for an additional extension to the deadline to respond to the Complaint due

to the ongoing settlement negotiations between the parties. There will be no prejudice to the Court or

the parties if the Unopposed Motion is granted.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant’s counsel respectfully requests that this Court grant this Unopposed

Motion for Additional Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint until June 12, 2020, and for any other

relief as the Court may allow.

/s/ Amy E. Stoll
Amy E. Stoll, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 150959
Richard C. Alvarez, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 031615
Older Lundy & Alvarez

2
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT Document 40 Filed 06/01/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID 415

1000 West Cass Street
Tampa, Florida 33606
Phone: (813) 254-8998
Fax: (813) 839-4411
astoll@olalaw.com
jblanchette@olalaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL HEREBY CERTIFIES that it conferred with Plaintiff’s
counsel, in good faith and in accordance with Local Rule 3.01(g), and Plaintiff’s counsel agreed
to the requested additional extension.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL HEREBY CERTIFIES that on June 1, 2020, a true and
correct copy of this Motion was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF
system so that notice will be sent to all counsel of record.

/s/ Amy E. Stoll
Amy E. Stoll, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 150959

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.flmd.376843.40.0.pdf
Size: 941,248 bytes
SHA-256: 030af31f8646587b6f4fabe660de07453514fe67d291bff71c98554a9d25d01c
Our copy: gov.uscourts.flmd.376843.40.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)