Sieloff v. Stryker Corporation et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying the parties' stipulation to extend the time for plaintiff to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss 12 . It is further ordered denying the parties' request to vacate the order granting defendants' motion to dismiss 11 . (See attached PDF for details) Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 11/28/12. (JAMA)

1
2

WO

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Ryan Sieloff,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
13

Stryker Corporation;
Corporation,

14

Defendants.

15

Stryker

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Sales)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-12-01834-PHX-FJM
ORDER

16
On November 16, 2012, we entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss
17
(doc. 11). We now have before us the parties' stipulation to extend the time for plaintiff to
18
respond to defendants' motion to dismiss, which requests that this court vacate that order
19
(doc. 12).
20
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) provides that when a motion to extend the time for a party to
21
respond is made after the time has expired, as it has here, this court may, for good cause,
22
extend the time to respond "if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect." Here, the
23
parties' stipulation does not indicate that either party failed to act due to excusable neglect.
24
Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on October 16, 2012. Plaintiff's response was due
25
on November 2, 2012. Because plaintiff failed to respond, or to indicate his intent to respond
26
on or before the filing deadline, we disposed of the motion summarily pursuant to LRCiv
27
7.2(i). Following our order, the parties belatedly informed the court that on two separate
28

1

occasions they agreed to extend the time in which plaintiff would file his response to

2

defendants' motion to dismiss. For no apparent reason, the parties neglected to file a

3

stipulation with the court each time they agreed to an extension. Because the parties' actions

4

reflect inexcusable neglect, we deny the parties' stipulation to extend the time for plaintiff

5

to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 12). Moreover, our previous order (doc.

6

11) fully considered the merits of defendants' motion to dismiss, and thus it is unlikely that

7

plaintiff's response would change the court's decision.

8

IT IS ORDERED DENYING the parties' stipulation to extend the time for plaintiff

9

to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 12). It is further ordered DENYING the

10
11

parties' request to vacate the order granting defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 11).
DATED this 28th day of November, 2012.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-