Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

International Development Corporation v. Richmond et al, No. 4:08-cv-00111 (E.D. Tex. May 16, 2008)

Granted
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division
Case No.
No. 4:08-cv-00111, Dkt. No. 15
Decided
May 16, 2008
Judge
Richard A. Schell, J.
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER granting 13 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint. The Defendants shall file their responses by 5/28/2008. Defendant Advantive Ideas is ORDERED to refrain from filing any further pleadings unless signed by a licensed at…
Length
1 page

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT §

CORPORATION, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:08-CV-111-RAS

§

ADVENTIVE IDEAS, LLC and § SIMON N. RICHMOND, §

Defendants. §

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Before the court is Defendants Adventive Ideas, LLC and Simon N. Richmond’s pro se Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint (Doc. No. 13), filed April 28, 2008, in which Defendants request a 30-day extension of the deadline to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Because this request is for only a 30 day extension, the court will not expend the considerable time it would take to resolve the issue of whether Richmond was evading service of process. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The Defendants shall file their responses to the Complaint by May 28, 2008.

In addition, the court reminds Defendant Simon Richmond that he may not represent Defendant Adventive Ideas, LLC pro se. It is a well-settled rule of law that a corporation or other unincorporated association cannot appear in federal court unless represented by a licensed attorney. Memon v. Allied Domecq QSR, 385 F.3d 871, 873 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Defendant Adventive Ideas, LLC is ORDERED to refrain from the filing of any further pleadings with this court unless signed by a licensed attorney.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

International Development Corporation v. Richmond et al, No. 4:08-cv-00111 (E.D. Tex. May 16, 2008).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-4_08-cv-00111-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_08-cv-00111-0

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.