This case, in which plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Presently noticed for hearing on March 7, 2012 are eight motions to dismiss filed by various defendants. Dckt. Nos. 73, 74, 75, 85, 88, 90, 92, 94; see also Dckt. No. 99.
On February 17, 2012, plaintiffs filed a request for a thirty day extension of time to respond to the numerous motions to dismiss. Dckt. No. 100. Plaintiffs contend that they need additional time to respond to the motions in light of the large number of concurrent motions filed by defendants. Id. at 4. Plaintiffs also contend that they need additional time because of the looming discovery deadline and the many discovery-related tasks they need to complete before that deadline, and because one of the plaintiffs will be out of the state for an indeterminate time in order to care for her ill mother. Id. at 3.
In light of plaintiffs' representations and the numerous motions to dismiss that plaintiffs must oppose, their motion for an extension of time, Dckt. No. 100, will be granted, and the hearing and briefing schedule on the motions to dismiss will be continued.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time, Dckt. No. 100, is granted.
2. The March 7, 2012 hearing on defendants' motions to dismiss, Dckt. Nos. 73, 74, 75, 85, 88, 90, 92, 94, is continued to April 25, 2012.
3. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to each motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than April 11, 2012.
4. Failure of plaintiffs to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the unopposed motion, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court's Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's oppositions on or before April 18, 2012.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...