Seastrand v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2:17-CV-214 TS. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Utah
Number: infdco20181130f19
Visitors: 10
Filed: Nov. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 29, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGEMENT TED STEWART , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Miller Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement. Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgement on October 16, 2018. Under DUCivR 7-1(3), Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition was due within 28 days after receiving service. However, Plaintiff requested and was granted an extension by the
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGEMENT TED STEWART , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Miller Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement. Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgement on October 16, 2018. Under DUCivR 7-1(3), Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition was due within 28 days after receiving service. However, Plaintiff requested and was granted an extension by the ..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
TED STEWART, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Miller Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement. Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgement on October 16, 2018. Under DUCivR 7-1(3), Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition was due within 28 days after receiving service. However, Plaintiff requested and was granted an extension by the Court to file his opposition by 4:30 p.m. on November 20, 2018. Plaintiff failed to file by that deadline. On November 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Memorandum. Although the Memorandum is one week late, Plaintiff has not sought, nor has the Court granted, leave to file out of time. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), the Court may extend a filing deadline upon a showing of "good cause" and "excusable neglect." Plaintiff has presented the Court with neither. Therefore, the Court will strike the Memorandum in Opposition and all attached exhibits.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment (Docket No. 89) is STRICKEN.
Source: Leagle
