Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. RUDD, C14-5434 BHS. (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20141103a80 Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 03, 2014
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Sherilyn Gallegos and Richard R. Rudd, Jr.'s ("Defendants") motion for extension of time (Dkt. 70). On October 15, 2014, the Clerk entered default against Defendants. Dkt. 65. On October 20, 2014, Defendants filed the instant motion requesting an additional two weeks to answer the complaint. Dkt. 70. On October 21, 2014, the Government responded and re
More

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Sherilyn Gallegos and Richard R. Rudd, Jr.'s ("Defendants") motion for extension of time (Dkt. 70).

On October 15, 2014, the Clerk entered default against Defendants. Dkt. 65. On October 20, 2014, Defendants filed the instant motion requesting an additional two weeks to answer the complaint. Dkt. 70. On October 21, 2014, the Government responded and requested that the Court deny the motion without prejudice because the default must be set aside before an answer may be filed. Dkt. 71. The Court agrees with the Government. Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice Defendants' motion for an extension of time. If the Court grants Defendants' motion to set aside the default (Dkt. 73), Defendants may then file a motion for an extension if necessary.

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