U.S. v. Alizadeh, 2:14-cv-00577-TLN-KJN. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20170519f36
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 18, 2017
Latest Update: May 18, 2017
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff United States of America ("Plaintiff") filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on February 2, 2017. (ECF No. 29.) On April 27, 2017, the Court granted Defendant Azita Alizadeh an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29). On May 1, 2017, the Court clarified that the extension applied solely to Defendant Azita Alizadeh and reminded the remaining Defendants that their oppositions were due on May 4, 2017.
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff United States of America ("Plaintiff") filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on February 2, 2017. (ECF No. 29.) On April 27, 2017, the Court granted Defendant Azita Alizadeh an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29). On May 1, 2017, the Court clarified that the extension applied solely to Defendant Azita Alizadeh and reminded the remaining Defendants that their oppositions were due on May 4, 2017. (..
More
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff United States of America ("Plaintiff") filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on February 2, 2017. (ECF No. 29.) On April 27, 2017, the Court granted Defendant Azita Alizadeh an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29). On May 1, 2017, the Court clarified that the extension applied solely to Defendant Azita Alizadeh and reminded the remaining Defendants that their oppositions were due on May 4, 2017. (ECF No. 46.) The Court moved the hearing on the motion for summary judgment for all Defendants to July 13, 2017, for the purpose of promoting judicial economy. On May 5, 2017, a day after their oppositions were due, the remaining Defendants filed an ex parte application for a 56-day extension of time to the same date as Defendant Azita Alizadeh. (ECF No. 47.) Defendants did not provide any explanation as to why their application could not have been filed in the three days between the Court's reminder and the opposition deadline or why the application was filed a day after the deadline. The Court will not grant an extension when the application is not timely. Furthermore, the remaining Defendants filed their oppositions for which they sought an extension on May 5, 2017. Accordingly, Defendants ex parte application for extension of time is hereby DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
