Filed: Feb. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING "STIPULATION" ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Re: Dkt. No. 16 JOSEPH C. SPERO , Chief Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to the parties' December 31, 2018 stipulation and the Court's order adopting that stipulation, Plaintiff Troy Ocampo's motion for summary judgment was due February 15, 2019. See dkt. 15. Ocampo did not file his motion on that date, but instead filed a document captioned as a "stipulation," stating that Ocampo's atto
Summary: ORDER DENYING "STIPULATION" ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Re: Dkt. No. 16 JOSEPH C. SPERO , Chief Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to the parties' December 31, 2018 stipulation and the Court's order adopting that stipulation, Plaintiff Troy Ocampo's motion for summary judgment was due February 15, 2019. See dkt. 15. Ocampo did not file his motion on that date, but instead filed a document captioned as a "stipulation," stating that Ocampo's attor..
More
ORDER DENYING "STIPULATION"
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Re: Dkt. No. 16
JOSEPH C. SPERO, Chief Magistrate Judge.
Pursuant to the parties' December 31, 2018 stipulation and the Court's order adopting that stipulation, Plaintiff Troy Ocampo's motion for summary judgment was due February 15, 2019. See dkt. 15. Ocampo did not file his motion on that date, but instead filed a document captioned as a "stipulation," stating that Ocampo's attorney needed an additional twenty days to prepare the motion (for a new deadline of March 7, 2019), and stating that counsel had "been unable to communication [sic] with the Defendant; but, due the relationship established between counsel of both the Plaintiff and Defendant, [counsel had] no reason to believe they will object to the stipulation and requested relief." Dkt. 16. Ocampo's counsel requests this extension due to a heavy caseload, with a total of sixteen briefs due in district court actions.
A stipulation requires affirmative consent of the parties. Ocampo's unilateral request for an extension is not a stipulation, despite its caption. Ocampo should have filed a motion to enlarge time pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3, and—given that this particular request is not based on unforeseeable circumstances—should have done so well in advance of the deadline he sought to extend. The request is therefore DENIED without prejudice.
Ocampo is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. If Defendant Nancy Berryhill consents to an extension of the deadline for Ocampo's motion, the parties may file a true stipulation no later than February 26, 2019, and this order to show cause will be vacated. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, Ocampo may file by the same deadline either: (1) his motion for summary judgment; or (2) a detailed response explaining why additional time is warranted and why Ocampo's failure to seek an extension before the deadline should be excused.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
