Hy Cite Corporation v. Badbusinessbureau.co, et al

Filing 53

Hy Cite Corporation v. Badbusinessbureau.co, et al

Doc. 53

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Hy Cite Corporat i o n , corp orat ion, Wis c onsin) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) b a d b u s i n essbureau.com, L.L.C., a St .) K i t t s / N e v i s C o r p o r a t i o n d / b / a) b a d b u s i n e s s b u r e a u . c o m a n d / o r) rip o f f r ep ort.com a n d / o r) b a d b u s i n e s s b u r e a u . c o m / R i p - O f f) Rep ort .com; ) ) Xcent ric Ventures, L.L.C., an A riz ona) l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y comp a n y d/ b / a) b a d b u s i n e s s b u r e a u . c o m a n d / o r) r ip offrep ort.com a n d / o r) b a d b u s i n e s s b u r e a u . c o m / R i p - O f f) Rep ort .com; and ) ) Ed M agedson, an Arizona resident, ) ) Defendant s. ) ) ) a No. CIV 04-2856-PHX-EHC O RDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Pending before t h e Court is Plaintiff's Application for Entry of Default [dkt. 45] bas e d on Defendants filing an Answer [dkt. 46] two days late. The Court held a hearing concerning this matter on January 30, 2006. Subsequent to the hearing, D e f e n d a nt s filed a M ot ion for Enlargement of Time to Answer. [Dkt. 49]. The M ot ion is fully briefed. Defendant s request that the Court enlarge the time to answer by tw o day s because Defendant s' Counsel "neglect e d to request that staff docket the ten-day time period for filing the answer." [Dkt. 49, p. 2]. Counsel was unable to herself docket the time period

Case 2:04-cv-02856-EHC

Document 53

Filed 04/06/2006

Page 1 of 2
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

because she was in Utah handling another matter. The Court finds that the failure to docket t he time period excuses a two-day delay in filing the Answer. P l a int iff contends that Defendants should be required to pay its fees in seeking ent ry of default and opposing the M ot ion for Enlargement. Plaintiff, however, could have avoided incurring those fees by stipulat i n g t o an extension of time, as Defendants request ed on the last day for t i m e l y filing the Answer. The Court will not grant Plaintiff the request ed attorney fees. Accordingly , IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application for Entry of Default [dkt. 45] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' M ot io n for Enlargement of Time to Answer [dkt. 49] is GRANTED. DAT ED this 5th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02856-EHC

Document 53

-2Filed 04/06/2006

Page 2 of 2