STYERS v. RYAN, CV-98-2244-PHX-JAT. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20120210857
Visitors: 24
Filed: Feb. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 09, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge. Before the Court is Respondents' motion for extension of time to February 14 to file a response to Petitioner's motion to enter judgment. (Doc. 164.) The motion fails to state the position of opposing counsel or include a proposed form of order, as required by Local Rule Civil 7.3 and Section II.G.1 of the Electronic Case File Administrative Policies and Procedure Manual. Furthermore, it appears the continuance being sought is unnecessary. Petitioner's
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge. Before the Court is Respondents' motion for extension of time to February 14 to file a response to Petitioner's motion to enter judgment. (Doc. 164.) The motion fails to state the position of opposing counsel or include a proposed form of order, as required by Local Rule Civil 7.3 and Section II.G.1 of the Electronic Case File Administrative Policies and Procedure Manual. Furthermore, it appears the continuance being sought is unnecessary. Petitioner's m..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge.
Before the Court is Respondents' motion for extension of time to February 14 to file a response to Petitioner's motion to enter judgment. (Doc. 164.) The motion fails to state the position of opposing counsel or include a proposed form of order, as required by Local Rule Civil 7.3 and Section II.G.1 of the Electronic Case File Administrative Policies and Procedure Manual. Furthermore, it appears the continuance being sought is unnecessary. Petitioner's motion was filed on January 25, 2012. Under Local Rule Civil 7.2(c) and Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Respondents' response is due February 13, 2012.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents' Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 164) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Source: Leagle
