Mayor and City Council Of Baltimore v. Azar, RDB-19-1103. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20190725562
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD D. BENNETT , District Judge . Pending before this Court is Defendants' Partially Opposed Motion to Extend Time for Responding to Complaint (ECF No. 60). Defendants advise that they plan to file a motion to stay proceedings in this case pending the current appeal of the preliminary injunction at the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. ( Id. ) Defendants request that this Court grant their motion to extend the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint until t
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD D. BENNETT , District Judge . Pending before this Court is Defendants' Partially Opposed Motion to Extend Time for Responding to Complaint (ECF No. 60). Defendants advise that they plan to file a motion to stay proceedings in this case pending the current appeal of the preliminary injunction at the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. ( Id. ) Defendants request that this Court grant their motion to extend the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint until th..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
RICHARD D. BENNETT, District Judge.
Pending before this Court is Defendants' Partially Opposed Motion to Extend Time for Responding to Complaint (ECF No. 60). Defendants advise that they plan to file a motion to stay proceedings in this case pending the current appeal of the preliminary injunction at the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. (Id.) Defendants request that this Court grant their motion to extend the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint until three weeks after either (1) any stay is lifted, or (2) the Court denies the Stay Motion (whichever is sooner). In the alternative, Defendants seek a thirty-day extension of their response deadline until August 16, 2019. Plaintiff consents to the thirty-day extension but opposes further delay in proceeding on the merits and will oppose the Defendants' planned motion to stay proceedings.
This Court will grant the unopposed extension of thirty days but will deny an open-ended extension based on an intended motion to stay. Defendants' motion to stay the proceedings will be decided in due course once it is fully briefed.
Accordingly, IT IS this 16th day of July 2019, HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendants' Partially Opposed Motion to Extend Time for Responding to Complaint (ECF No. 60) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;
2. Defendants shall respond to the Complaint on or before August 16, 2019;
3. The Clerk of the Court transmit copies of this Order and accompanying Memorandum Opinion to counsel for both parties.
Source: Leagle
