PAE APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. SAIZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 2:15-cv-00357-RFB-NJK. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20150604c88
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jun. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 46) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend the deadline to respond to the third-party claim. Docket No. 46. The stipulation is defective for several reasons. First, the stipulation fails to provide any reason for the extension sought. See Local Rule 6-1(b) (stipulations for extensions must "state the reasons for the extension requested"). Hence, the Court cannot find that good cause exists for the requested extension. Sec
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 46) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend the deadline to respond to the third-party claim. Docket No. 46. The stipulation is defective for several reasons. First, the stipulation fails to provide any reason for the extension sought. See Local Rule 6-1(b) (stipulations for extensions must "state the reasons for the extension requested"). Hence, the Court cannot find that good cause exists for the requested extension. Seco..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 46)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend the deadline to respond to the third-party claim. Docket No. 46. The stipulation is defective for several reasons. First, the stipulation fails to provide any reason for the extension sought. See Local Rule 6-1(b) (stipulations for extensions must "state the reasons for the extension requested"). Hence, the Court cannot find that good cause exists for the requested extension. Second, the stipulation was filed after the relevant deadline expired triggering the requirement to establish excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). No such showing was made. Accordingly, the stipulation is hereby DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
