Sharp et al v. Soest et al

Filing 12

ORDER GRANTING 11 Stipulation to Extend Deadline to File Responsive Pleading, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/14/2015. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN SHARP, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.
ERNEST DEAN SOEST, et al,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01162 --- JLT
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO
EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE RESPONSIVE
PLEADING
(Doc. 11)

16
17

In this action, Plaintiffs claim they suffered damages after an airplane Dean Soest was towing

18

became separated from the towline and crashed into Plaintiff’s property. (Doc. 1-1 at 7-10)

19

Defendants Airborne Global Solutions, Inc., Air Transport Services Group, Inc. and Cargo Aircraft

20

Management, Inc removed the matter to this Court before filing responsive pleadings and before

21

Plaintiffs served Mr. and Mrs. Soest.1 (Doc. 4 at 2)

22

Plaintiffs and the removing Defendants stipulated to allowing an additional two weeks—to

23

August 10, 2015—to file the responsive pleadings. (Doc. 10) However, Defendants did not do so and

24

on August 13, 2015, the parties filed a second stipulation allowing Defendants until August 24, 2015

25

to file the pleadings. (Doc. 11) In support for the stipulation, the parties rely, loosely, on the Court’s

26

Local Rule 144(a). This Rule reads, “[A]n initial stipulation extending time for no more than twenty-

27
1

28

Plaintiffs are reminded of their obligation to make timely service of the summons and complaint on all defendants. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(m).

1

1

eight (28) days to respond to a complaint . . . may be filed without approval of the Court if the

2

stipulation is signed on behalf of all parties who have appeared in the action and are affected by the

3

stipulation. All other extensions of time must be approved by the Court.” (Emphasis added.) Said

4

another way, the Rule permits only one stipulation extending time without Court approval regardless

5

of the amount of time sought in total. As a result, the parties’ assertion that the second stipulation

6

need not be approved by the Court is incorrect.

7
8
9
10

In any event, given the short extension sought at this time, the Court GRANTS the stipulation.
(Doc. 11) Defendants SHALL file their responsive pleadings no later than August 24, 2015.
No further requests for an extension of time to file the responsive pleading will be
entertained absent a showing of good cause.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 14, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2