U.S. v. Buckardt, 2:19-CV-52-RAJ. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20190329g54
Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. JONES , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Elmer J. Buckardt and Karen A. Buckardt's (collectively, "Defendants") "Motion to extend date of summon [sic] in civil action" ("Motion"). Dkt. # 4. Defendants' Motion, filed February 25, 2019, is a one-sentence motion that reads in full: "On February 20, 2019 defendants are requesting a motion to extend summon [sic] in a civil action for 30 days." Id. Plaintiff United States of America ("Plaintiff"
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. JONES , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Elmer J. Buckardt and Karen A. Buckardt's (collectively, "Defendants") "Motion to extend date of summon [sic] in civil action" ("Motion"). Dkt. # 4. Defendants' Motion, filed February 25, 2019, is a one-sentence motion that reads in full: "On February 20, 2019 defendants are requesting a motion to extend summon [sic] in a civil action for 30 days." Id. Plaintiff United States of America ("Plaintiff")..
More
ORDER
RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Elmer J. Buckardt and Karen A. Buckardt's (collectively, "Defendants") "Motion to extend date of summon [sic] in civil action" ("Motion"). Dkt. # 4. Defendants' Motion, filed February 25, 2019, is a one-sentence motion that reads in full: "On February 20, 2019 defendants are requesting a motion to extend summon [sic] in a civil action for 30 days." Id. Plaintiff United States of America ("Plaintiff") opposed the Motion a day after it was filed, contending that it was premature as of that date because Plaintiff had not yet served Defendants. Dkt. # 8.
It is not clear what date Defendants request that this Court extend. If the date is the service deadline for Plaintiff, then Defendants' motion is unnecessary, as they were already served on March 13, 2019. Dkt. ## 13-15. If Defendants request an extension of their own deadline to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Complaint, then this Motion is also unnecessary at this time, as Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 11, 2019. Dkt. # 12.
Accordingly, given the vagueness of Defendants' request and the lack of necessity for extension of the service deadline at this time, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants' Motion. Dkt. # 4.
Source: Leagle
