Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

UNITED STATES EX REL. INFRAMETALS CO. v. TETONS DEVELOPMENT CORP., 6:12-cv-580-Orl-37KRS. (2012)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20120517850 Visitors: 9
Filed: May 16, 2012
Latest Update: May 16, 2012
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff's and Defendant American Southern Insurance Co.'s "Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint" (Doc. No. 10), filed May 15, 2012. The parties may not stipulate or agree to disregard the deadlines set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or (when one is entered in this case) by the Court in a case management and scheduling order. As Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a) notes, "[u]nless another tim
More

ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff's and Defendant American Southern Insurance Co.'s "Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint" (Doc. No. 10), filed May 15, 2012.

The parties may not stipulate or agree to disregard the deadlines set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or (when one is entered in this case) by the Court in a case management and scheduling order. As Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a) notes, "[u]nless another time is specified" by rule or statute, a defendant must serve a responsive pleading (i) within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint or, (ii) if the defendant waived service, within a 60-day or 90-day time period, depending upon the circumstances. To the extent the parties' "stipulation" is an application to the Court to extend this deadline, it does not comply with Local Rule 3.01(a), which requires a party to include "a concise statement of the precise relief requested, a statement of the basis of the request, and a memorandum of legal authority in support of the request." Since all applications and motions must comply with the requirements of the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida, to the extent the parties' "stipulation" is an application to the Court, it is due to be denied without prejudice. The parties may move to extend the deadline, nuc pro tunc if necessary, in the proper manner.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

Plaintiff's and Defendant American Southern Insurance Co.'s "Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint" (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer