Montes et al v. Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc.

Filing 39

Order GRANTING stipulation to grant the Cross Defendants a further continuance to respond to the cross claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/14/2021(Rosales, O.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL MONTES, et al., 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC., 15 Case No. 1:20-cv-01162-NONE-EPG ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO GRANT THE CROSS-DEFENDANTS A FURTHER CONTINUANCE TO RESPOND TO THE CROSS-CLAIM Defendant. (ECF No. 38) 16 17 18 Before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend the time for Cross-Defendants 19 Harvest Kings, LLC and Eduardo Soto (“Cross-Defendants”) to respond to the cross-claim 20 against them. (ECF No. 38.) According to the stipulation, Cross-Defendants intend to move to 21 compel arbitration if required to respond to the cross-claim. Further, there are several motions to 22 dismiss currently pending before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. (See ECF Nos. 15, 16, 18. 21.) 23 Resolution of those motions may relieve Cross-Defendants from any obligation to respond. 24 Therefore, the parties request to extend the time for Cross-Defendants to respond to the cross- 25 claim until thirty days from the date the pending motions are decided.1 26 /// 27 1 28 The stipulation requests “a continuance of 30 days from the date that the pending motions (Doc. Nos. 16 and 21) are denied (OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE) to the following date:___________.” (ECF No. 38 at 3.) The proposed alternative date is left blank. 1 The parties previously stipulated to extend Eduardo Soto’s response deadline to January 1 2 29, 2021, and this stipulation was approved by the Court.2 (ECF No. 33.) However, the parties 3 indicate that they also entered into a subsequent stipulation to continue Cross-Defendants’ 4 response date to June 4, 2021. (ECF No. 38 at 2.) This stipulation was not filed on the docket and 5 approved by the Court. Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), an initial stipulation extending time for no 6 more than twenty-eight (28) days to respond to a cross-claim may be filed without the Court’s 7 approval, but all other extensions of time must be approved by the Court. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 8 144(a). 9 Additionally, the present stipulation was not filed until July 13, 2021, long after Cross- 10 Defendants’ response deadline had lapsed. Counsel are reminded that they are required to seek to 11 obtain a necessary extension from the Court as soon as the need for an extension becomes 12 apparent. E.D. Cal. L.R. 144(d). Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on or after the 13 required filing date are looked upon with disfavor. Id. 14 Having considered the stipulation, the Court will grant the parties’ request. However, the 15 parties are reminded of their obligation to comply with the Local Rules and are further cautioned 16 that future untimely requests for extensions may be denied. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline for Harvest Kings, LLC and 18 Eduardo Soto to respond to the cross-claim is extended to thirty days following resolution of the 19 motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 15, 16, 18, 21) currently pending before District Judge Dale A. 20 Drozd. IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: July 14, 2021 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 The parties’ stipulation did not extend the deadline for Harvest Kings, LLC’s response. (See ECF Nos. 32, 33.) It is not clear from the docket when this party was served with the summons and cross-claim and when its response was initially due. 2 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?