The opinion of the court was delivered by: Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO OPPOSE MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to oppose the pending motions to dismiss filed by defendants. Specifically, Defendant Gower and Holmes filed a motion to dismiss on January 13, 2011. [Doc 37]. On February 7, 2011 Defendants Oberst, Fiegener, Flaherty, Nuchols, Gamberg, Runnels, Lamberton, James, Garrison, Roche, Harrison, Gordon, Spangle, Wagner, Armetta, and Kopec filed motions to dismiss [Doc 38] No opposition has been filed as to either of these motions and the time to do so has expired.
Plaintiff was advised by the Clerk's Office [Doc 3] that compliance with the local rules would be required. Specifically, plaintiff's attention was called to Local Rule 6‐142 "a request for extension of time must state the reason an extension is needed. A request for extension of time should be filed before the deadline in question." Here, plaintiff has offered no reason whatsoever as to why no opposition has been filed to the first two motions and/or why additional time is needed to respond to two remaining motions. It appears that plaintiff is under the belief that his time to respond runs from the date of the latest filed motion. Plaintiff is cautioned that each motion is considered separately and must be addressed separately. In any event, the request for an extension as it applies to Docs 37 and 38 is DENIED.
On March 3, 2011 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss as to Tasi [Doc 44]. On March 11, 2011 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss as to Hunsaker. [Doc 49]. Because plaintiff's request for an extension comes within the time period before opposition to these latter two motions is due, the request is GRANTED, even though no good cause for the extension has been shown. Opposition to these motions is due as follows: As to Tasi, opposition is due April 29, 2011 and the opposition to Hunsaker is due May 9,2011.
© 1992-2014 VersusLaw ...