Wynia v. SPF Energy, Inc et al

Filing 10

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO 2 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM :( Responses due by 1/10/2017) Signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan on 1/6/2017. (AMC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
JOSH WYNIA,

CV 16-173-BLG-SPW-TJC
Plaintiff(s),
ORDER

vs.
SPF ENERGY, INC. & FARSTAD
OIL, INC.,
Defendant(s).
Before the Court is Plaintiff Josh Wynia’s Motion for Extension of Time to
File a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 7). 1 Specifically,
Plaintiff requests five days (presumably from the date of Plaintiff’s Motion) in
which to respond to Defendants SPF Energy, Inc.’s and Farstad Oil, Inc.’s
(collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 7 at 1; see Docs. 2 and 3).
Plaintiff’s Motion asserts both (1) that his attorney, Casey Nixon, has had health
issues that have prevented him from working, and (2) that an email and phone
message were sent to Stephen D. Bell, attorney for Defendants, inquiring as to
whether Defendants object to the instant Motion.

1

Although Plaintiff captions his Motion, “Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and to Amend Plaintiff’s Complaint,” the body of the Motion
does not discuss any proposed amended complaint, and Plaintiff does not request leave to file an
amended complaint. Accordingly, this Order will address only Plaintiff’s request to extend his
deadline to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff may seek leave to amend in
accordance with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff filed his Motion after the deadline to
respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. See L.R. 7.1(d)(1)(B)(i). However,
given Plaintiff’s representations as to his attorney’s health and his efforts to contact
Defendant, coupled with the limited amount of time (two days) that has passed
since the aforementioned deadline lapsed, the Court finds good cause underlying
Plaintiff’s Motion. Going forward, and absent exceptional circumstances, the
Court will not consider any motions for extension of time that are filed after the
deadline the party is requesting to extend.
Accordingly IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of
Time to File a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 2) on or before January 10, 2017.

DATED this 6th day of January, 2017.

_______________________________
TIMOTHY J. CAVAN
United States Magistrate Judge