Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

KARUK TRIBE v. STELLE, 16-cv-01079-MMC. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160520961 Visitors: 11
Filed: May 19, 2016
Latest Update: May 19, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Re: Dkt. No. 68 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . Before the Court is federal defendants' Motion for Extension of Time, filed May 19, 2016, by which motion federal defendants seek a thirty-day extension of their May 20, 2016 deadline to respond to plaintiffs' complaint. The motion, however, is not filed in accordance with the Civil Local Rules of this district, which (1) require a supporting declaration
More

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 68

Before the Court is federal defendants' Motion for Extension of Time, filed May 19, 2016, by which motion federal defendants seek a thirty-day extension of their May 20, 2016 deadline to respond to plaintiffs' complaint. The motion, however, is not filed in accordance with the Civil Local Rules of this district, which (1) require a supporting declaration setting forth, inter alia, "the efforts the party has made to obtain a stipulation to the time change," and (2) provide for opposition to be filed within four days of the date the motion is filed. See Civil L.R. 6-3(a)(2), (b).

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED without prejudice to federal defendants' filing a motion or stipulation that complies with the Civil Local Rules.

IT IS SO 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