Patterson v. Six Flags Theme Parks Incorporated et al

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/29/2022 DENYING 19 The parties stipulated request, without prejudice to renewal with a detailed showing of good cause. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for 9/8/2022, REMAINS on Calendar.(Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 Melvin Patterson, 10 11 12 13 No. 2:21-cv-02398-KJM-AC Plaintiff, ORDER v. Six Flags Theme Parks Inc., et al., Defendants. 14 15 The court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated request to extend the deadline by which 16 defendants would be required to respond to the complaint, which was filed on the deadline for the 17 defendants’ response. ECF No. 19. The court has granted many previous extensions. See ECF 18 Nos. 9, 11, 13. 16, 18. If the most recent request were granted, the defendants would have been 19 relieved of their obligation to respond to the plaintiffs’ claims for more than 200 days. The 20 parties have not adequately explained the need for such a lengthy extension. The stipulated 21 request at ECF No. 19 is thus denied without prejudice to renewal with a detailed showing of 22 good cause. The status (pretrial scheduling) conference previously set for September 8, 2022 23 remains on calendar. See ECF No. 18. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: July 29, 2022. 1

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?