King County v. BP P.L.C., C18-758RSL. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20181009e14
Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PARTIALLY UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to respond to six motions to dismiss filed by the five defendants in this case. Dkt. #115-120. Plaintiff's responses are due on October 11, 2018. Dkt. #121. But plaintiff has filed a partially unopposed motion to stay proceedings, pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on appeals brought in two similar cases by th
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PARTIALLY UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to respond to six motions to dismiss filed by the five defendants in this case. Dkt. #115-120. Plaintiff's responses are due on October 11, 2018. Dkt. #121. But plaintiff has filed a partially unopposed motion to stay proceedings, pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on appeals brought in two similar cases by the..
More
ORDER GRANTING PARTIALLY UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to respond to six motions to dismiss filed by the five defendants in this case. Dkt. #115-120. Plaintiff's responses are due on October 11, 2018. Dkt. #121. But plaintiff has filed a partially unopposed motion to stay proceedings, pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on appeals brought in two similar cases by the City of Oakland and the City and County of San Francisco. Dkt. #125. The stay would suspend plaintiff's obligation to respond to the defendants' pending motions to dismiss. Plaintiff therefore seeks a two-week extension of the deadline from October 11 to October 25 in order to obtain a ruling on the stay motion before expending significant time and resources on these responses. The Court accordingly finds good case for an extension of time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1).
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED, and the Court hereby ORDERS that:
1. The deadline for plaintiff to respond to defendants' six motions to dismiss is extended from October 11, 2018 to October 25, 2018,
2. The deadline for defendants to file any replies in support of their motions to dismiss is extended from November 1, 2018 to November 15, 2018.
Source: Leagle
