Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Johnson v. Shamshad, 2:18-CV-00269-KJM-GGH. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180322b75 Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . The complaint in this action was filed on February 6, 2018. ECF No. 1. Defendant's Answer was due 21 days thereafter. ECF No. 2. On March 16, 2018, well beyond the 21-day deadline, defendant moved for an extension of time to file his Answer. ECF No. 6. Under the Local Rules, if a request for an extension is not filed as a stipulation signed by both parties, L.R. 144(a), then the party requesting an extension must (1) state in an affidavit that s
More

ORDER

The complaint in this action was filed on February 6, 2018. ECF No. 1. Defendant's Answer was due 21 days thereafter. ECF No. 2. On March 16, 2018, well beyond the 21-day deadline, defendant moved for an extension of time to file his Answer. ECF No. 6. Under the Local Rules, if a request for an extension is not filed as a stipulation signed by both parties, L.R. 144(a), then the party requesting an extension must (1) state in an affidavit that such a stipulation could not reasonably be obtained, (2) explain why a stipulation could not be obtained; and (3) explain why the extension is necessary. L.R. 144(b). Defendant's request does not comply with the first two requirements. The court therefore DENIES this request, without prejudice, subject to refiling in accordance with Local Rule 144. Any renewed extension request shall also include the proposed length of the extension.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

This resolves ECF No. 6.

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