Filed: Jan. 24, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 24, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JENNIFER B. COFFMAN, District Judge. This matter is before the court on the defendants' motion for extension of time to answer (R. 6). As grounds for their motion, the defendants, who are residents of Singapore, argue that this proceeding involves complex procedural and substantive issues, including effectiveness of service, whether the parties may be required to arbitrate, and whether this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter, and that an extension of tim
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JENNIFER B. COFFMAN, District Judge. This matter is before the court on the defendants' motion for extension of time to answer (R. 6). As grounds for their motion, the defendants, who are residents of Singapore, argue that this proceeding involves complex procedural and substantive issues, including effectiveness of service, whether the parties may be required to arbitrate, and whether this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter, and that an extension of time..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JENNIFER B. COFFMAN, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on the defendants' motion for extension of time to answer (R. 6). As grounds for their motion, the defendants, who are residents of Singapore, argue that this proceeding involves complex procedural and substantive issues, including effectiveness of service, whether the parties may be required to arbitrate, and whether this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter, and that an extension of time is required for them to adequately prepare their answer. Service was physically effectuated on the defendants in Singapore on January 5, 2012, via USPS Registered Mail. Neither party has alleged that the defendants agreed to waive service, and therefore their answer is required, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), 6(d), and 6(a)(1)(C), by January 30, 2012.
The defendants' motion is, by their own admission, for "the benefit of Defendants' counsel to try to figure out how to plead," (R. 9) rather than for a substantive legal or logistical justification. Because, therefore, the defendants do not present a good cause for the court to extend time, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1), the court will deny the motion. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to extend time (R. 6) is DENIED.
