Order Granting Stipulation for Extension of Time

[ECF No. 28]

JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.

On December 8, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation to extend the December 15, 2016, deadline for defendant HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. to file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss plaintiff Raymond Maldonado's first amended complaint.1 The parties' request failed to comply with LR IA 6-1(a), which requires stipulating parties to state the reasons why an extension was sought, so I denied it without prejudice to the parties refiling it in compliance with that local rule.2

The parties now renew their stipulation, stating that additional time is needed for HSBC to file its reply brief "in light of the brief seven-day period provided by the rules and the twenty-four page Memorandum of Points and Authorities" filed by Maldonado in response to the motion to dismiss.3 The parties' statement of good cause is confusing, because the number of pages that Maldonado devoted to his response (24), which complies with this district's local rule,4 and the number of days allotted under this district's local rule for HSBC to file its reply (7),5 do not, in themselves or combined, constitute good cause for an extension. However, I infer from the stipulation that an extension is required because both HSBC's motion to dismiss and plaintiff's response are weightier briefs that what is typical at the motion-to-dismiss stage. In addition to arguing that Maldonado fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, HSBC challenges Maldonado's standing to bring this suit and seeks to strike class allegations from the first amended complaint. Those considerations constitute good cause,

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' stipulation for extension of time [ECF No. 28] is GRANTED.