Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Laura Leskinen v. Carolyn A. Halsey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 6, 2011

LAURA LESKINEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CAROLYN A. HALSEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff in this action has sued over one dozen defendants, alleging nearly one dozen claims for relief in a 228-paragraph complaint. (See Second Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 15.) On July 1, 2011, one of the named defendants, Douglas Frank Whitman, filed an ex parte request for a 60-day extension of time to file a response to the Second Amended Complaint. (Request, Dkt. No. 24.) Whitman, a resident of Maryland, contends that although he has access to an attorney in Maryland, that attorney's office "refuses to even look at the paperwork because the District Court is in California and the property in question is in the State of New York." (Id.) As a result, Whitman requests an extension of time so that he may retain counsel.

The undersigned grants Whitman's request in part and provides him with 30 additional days to respond to the Second Amended Complaint. An initial ex parte application for an extension of time to file an answer or otherwise respond to a plaintiff's complaint is governed by Eastern District Local Rule 144(c).*fn1 Although Whitman has not filed an affidavit indicating why he and plaintiff could not agree on a stipulated extension, which is a requirement of Local Rule 144(c), the undersigned nonetheless grants Whitman's ex parte request in light of the circumstances of this case. Any further extension should be sought through a noticed motion that conforms with the requirements of this court's Local Rules, or through a stipulation and proposed order that conforms with the court's Local Rules.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant Douglas Whitman's ex parte request for an extension of time in which to respond to the Second Amended Complaint is granted in part.

2. Defendant Douglas Whitman shall file a response to plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date of this order.

3. No further ex parte requests for extensions of time will be considered unless Whitman complies with this court's Local Rules regarding requests for extensions of time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.