Taraszka v. Graziosi
ORDER re 40 Stipulation filed by KEN TARASZKA, EUGENE TARASZKA, ANN TARASZKA. The Court DIRECTS CounterDefendants Eugene Taraszka, Ann Taraszka, and Ken Taraszka, to REFILE their Stipulation for an Extension of Time [Doc. 40] by December 9, 2011, a s either a stipulation that all parties have agreed to in writing pursuant to Local Rule 6.1 or a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1). Ordered by Judge C. Ashley Royal on 12/2/11. (lap) ***E-MAILED ORDER TO COUNSEL FOR THE TARASZKA DEFENDANTS (ggs)***
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
KELLIE WHITE GRAZIOSI
No. 3:11‐cv‐80 (CAR)
METLIFE INVESTORS USA
KEN TARASZKA, Administrator of :
the Estate of deceased STEVEN
TARASZKA, EUGENE TARASZKA, :
Before the Court is Eugene, Ann, and Ken Taraszka’s, Counter‐Defendants,
MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company’s (MetLife), Counter‐Claimant’s,
Stipulation of Time for Counter Defendants’ to Respond to Interpleader Counterclaim
[Doc. 40]. When this Court granted Defendant’s Counterclaim‐in‐Interpleader,
Counter‐Defendants were directed to respond to MetLife’s Counterclaim‐in‐
Interpleader within twenty‐one days of being served with process. See Doc. 31. On
November 3, 2011, Ken Taraszka was served with process; Eugene and Ann Taraszka
were both served with process the next day, November 4. Docs. 35, 36, 37. On
November 23, 2011, Counter‐Defendants filed a stipulation of extension of time until
Friday, December 23, 2011, to file a response, a thirty day extension. Specifically,
movants requested that they be given until Friday, December 23, 2011, to file a
response. Although not included in writing within the Stipulation itself,
Plaintiff/Counter‐Defendant Graziosi has represented to the Court that she does not
object to the extension.
Normally, a Stipulation without the Court’s approval to extend the time to file a
response, answer or otherwise a defensive pleading is allowed pursuant to Local Rule
6.1. L.R. 6.1. This extension is limited to a maximum of thirty days and must be
stipulated to by the parties. Id. If a motion is not stipulated to or if more than thirty
days is needed, the party should seek an extension under Rule 6(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Rule 6(b) allows the Court to grant a
motion for an extension of time when the movant makes a showing of good cause.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).
In this case, Counter‐Defendants have filed a Stipulation of an Extension of
Time for thirty days to file their response. The Stipulation states that the Taraszkas
and MetLife have stipulated to the thirty day extension and that the “responses to the
Counter‐claim interpleader are now to due filed … December 23, 2011.” Doc. 40 (sic).
Such language appears, at first glance, to be a stipulation pursuant to Local Rule 6.1.
However, a closer review indicates that Plaintiff/Counter‐Defendant Graziosi has not
stipulated in writing to the extension, as is required under the Local Rules. See L.R.
6.1. Although Plaintiff has represented to the Court that she does not object to the
extension, she has also represented that she does not consent to the extension.
Regardless, this representation is not in writing as is required under Local Rule 6.1.
Further, Counter‐Defendants cite to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) as their
basis for such an extension. Presuming then that Movants are filing a Motion under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) and not a Stipulation under Local Rule 6.1,
the Court must then consider whether they have established a showing of good cause
under Rule 6(b)(1). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Yet, to make matters even more
confusing, Counter‐Defendants have failed to provide even the slightest explanation
for the extension, let alone a showing of good cause.
Because of the indecisive nature of Counter‐Defendant’s filing, the Court
DIRECTS Counter‐Defendants Eugene Taraszka, Ann Taraszka, and Ken Taraszka, to
RE‐FILE their Stipulation for an Extension of Time [Doc. 40] by December 9, 2011,
as either a stipulation that all parties have agreed to in writing pursuant to Local Rule
6.1 or a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1).
SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of December, 2011.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?