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.

United States of America v. Bret Allen Bossingham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 8, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
BRET ALLEN BOSSINGHAM, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 106)

On July 5, 2011, Defendants requested an extension of time to reply to the Government's Opposition to Defendants' motion for bill of particulars. Defendants' reply was due on July 5, 2011.

Defendants failed to comply with the express provisions of Local Rule 144(d). Local Rule 144(d) provides:

Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other counsel or parties in an action as Requests soon as for the Court-approved need for an extension extensions becomes brought apparent. on the required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.

E.D. Cal. R. 144(d) (emphasis added). Defendants offer no suitable justification for their belated request for an extension. The only grounds for Defendants' request are that Defendants' counsel recently returned from vacation, and the Fourth of July holiday; neither provides a suitable basis IT IS SO ORDERED. for granting Defendants request.

Defendants motion is DENIED.

20110708

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



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.