Filed: Feb. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. JONES , District Judge . This matter comes before the court on pro se Plaintiff Mark Daviscourt's "MOTION for Extension of Time to Reply to Defendants Bortnick, Stebbins and Isenberg's Response to Original Complaint" ("Motion for Extension of Time") and "MOTION to Enlarge Time to Effect Service of Process and Allow Alternative Service of Process by Mail for Unserved Defendants" ("Motion to Enlarge Time"). Dkt. ## 21, 22. Defendants have responded to each motion. Dkt. ## 2
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. JONES , District Judge . This matter comes before the court on pro se Plaintiff Mark Daviscourt's "MOTION for Extension of Time to Reply to Defendants Bortnick, Stebbins and Isenberg's Response to Original Complaint" ("Motion for Extension of Time") and "MOTION to Enlarge Time to Effect Service of Process and Allow Alternative Service of Process by Mail for Unserved Defendants" ("Motion to Enlarge Time"). Dkt. ## 21, 22. Defendants have responded to each motion. Dkt. ## 26..
More
ORDER
RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on pro se Plaintiff Mark Daviscourt's "MOTION for Extension of Time to Reply to Defendants Bortnick, Stebbins and Isenberg's Response to Original Complaint" ("Motion for Extension of Time") and "MOTION to Enlarge Time to Effect Service of Process and Allow Alternative Service of Process by Mail for Unserved Defendants" ("Motion to Enlarge Time"). Dkt. ## 21, 22. Defendants have responded to each motion. Dkt. ## 26, 27. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time (Dkt. # 21), and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge Time (Dkt. # 22).
I. DISCUSSION
A. Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. # 21)
Plaintiff's first Motion for an Extension of Time requests an extension of 60 days to respond to certain Defendants' "reply to the original Complaint." Dkt. # 21 at 1. The contents of the Motion, however, make it clear that Plaintiff is effectively requesting a 60-day extension to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed on January 28, 2019. Dkt. # 18. Defendants indicate that they do not object to a 30 day extension, but argue that a 60 day extension is too long given the circumstances of this case. Dkt. # 26.
The Court agrees, and will GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time. Dkt. # 21. At this time, the Court finds good cause to extend the deadline by 30 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Should Plaintiff require more time, he may request another extension, so long as the new motion complies with the Federal Rules, this District's Local Civil Rules, and this Court's Standing Order. See Dkt. # 3 at 4.
B. Motion to Enlarge Time (Dkt. # 22)
Plaintiff's second Motion to Enlarge Time requests additional time to serve various unserved Defendants via mail. Dkt. # 22. On February 5, 2018, W. Carl Hankla appeared on behalf of these previously unserved Defendants. Dkt. # 19. Moreover, these Defendants note that they have each waived personal service. Dkt. # 27.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge Time as MOOT. Dkt. # 22.
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time (Dkt. # 21), and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge Time (Dkt. # 22). Plaintiff's time to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 18) is hereby extended to thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.
