Johnson v. Ona

Filing 11

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/9/2011 ORDERING that The court GRANTS plaintiff's 10 request at this time; however, the court notes that this is the third extension of time requested in this case ( 6 7 ). The court fu rther notes that there would be no cause for the present request were it not for the 7 second stipulated extension of time, which granted defendant until May 16, 2011 one week after the due date of the joint status conference statement - to file an answer. As plaintiff is frequently before this court, the court trusts that steps will be taken in the future to prevent such self-made scheduling conflicts. (Duong, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SCOTT N. JOHNSON,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

No. CIV S-11-0021 KJM-JFM

vs.
GODWIN E. ONA,
Defendant.

ORDER

15

/

16

This matter comes before the court upon plaintiff’s ex parte request for

17

continuance of date to file joint status conference statement filed on May 4, 2011. (ECF 10.)

18

Local Rule 144(c) states: “The Court may, in its discretion, grant an initial extension ex parte

19

upon the affidavit of counsel that a stipulation extending time cannot reasonably be obtained,

20

explaining the reasons why such a stipulation cannot be obtained and the reasons why the

21

extension is necessary.” In his request, plaintiff has not indicated that a stipulation could not be

22

obtained. However, plaintiff has provided reasons for the extension: namely, that it would give

23

defendants time to file a response to the complaint and for the parties to engage in settlement

24

discussions. The court GRANTS plaintiff’s request at this time; however, the court notes that

25

this is the third extension of time requested in this case. (ECF 6 & 7.) The court further notes

26

that there would be no cause for the present request were it not for the second stipulated
1

1

extension of time, which granted defendant until May 16, 2011 – one week after the due date of

2

the joint status conference statement – to file an answer. (ECF 7.) As plaintiff is frequently

3

before this court, the court trusts that steps will be taken in the future to prevent such self-made

4

scheduling conflicts.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 9, 2011.

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2