Strong v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 8:17-CV-485. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20180403c15
Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (filing 39). The motion will be granted. The Court notes the plaintiff's complaints about not receiving certain filings. Filing 38; filing 39. Both filings were represented in the certificate of service as having been mailed to the plaintiff. Filing 29 at 2; filing 32 at 3. And the Court has absolutely no reason not to believe that the filings were mailed, as required
Summary: ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (filing 39). The motion will be granted. The Court notes the plaintiff's complaints about not receiving certain filings. Filing 38; filing 39. Both filings were represented in the certificate of service as having been mailed to the plaintiff. Filing 29 at 2; filing 32 at 3. And the Court has absolutely no reason not to believe that the filings were mailed, as required b..
More
ORDER
JOHN M. GERRARD, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (filing 39). The motion will be granted.
The Court notes the plaintiff's complaints about not receiving certain filings. Filing 38; filing 39. Both filings were represented in the certificate of service as having been mailed to the plaintiff. Filing 29 at 2; filing 32 at 3. And the Court has absolutely no reason not to believe that the filings were mailed, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2). Nonetheless, all the parties are reminded of their obligation to provide proper non-electronic service on the plaintiff. See NECivR 5.2(b). And, the Court notes, while the rules do not required certified or registered mail, the use of those services can prevent disagreements about whether or not proper service was effected.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (filing 39) is granted.
2. The plaintiff may respond to Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C. and Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C., Kerry Feld, Successor Trustee's motion to dismiss (filing 32) on or before April 23, 2018.
3. The defendants may reply in support of their motion on or before April 30, 2018.
Source: Leagle
