Blair v. Douglas County et al
Filing
58
Amended ORDER granting in part and denying in part 53 the plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Reply to Douglas County's Second Motion to Dismiss. The plaintiff shall have until May 29, 2013, to file a response to the Second Motion to Dismiss Douglas County Defendants 49 . Amended to attach PDF document to entry. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
STEVEN R. BLAIR,
Plaintiff,
8:11CV349
vs.
ORDER
DOUGLAS
COUNTY,
a
political
subdivision existing and organized in
the State of Nebraska, DONALD
KLEINE, in his official capacity,
STUART DORNAN, in his official
capacity, JAMES JANSEN, in his
official capacity, LORETTA VONDRA,
in her individual and official capacities,
MARY S. MCKEEVER, in her individual
and official capacities, and DOUGLAS
COUNTY COURT ADMINISTRATORS,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Reply to
Douglas County’s Second Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 53). The defendants filed their
Second Motion to Dismiss Douglas County Defendants (Filing No. 49) on April 15,
2013.
Absent an extension of time, the plaintiff’s response is due May 9, 2013.
Although the defendants’ time to respond to the plaintiff’s motion has not yet expired,
the court determined it was necessary to address the matter prior to the current
response deadlines.
The plaintiff filed a motion to extend the response deadline until September 14,
2013. The plaintiff states he intends to amend the complaint based on the court’s April
1, 2013, Order (Filing No. 48) denying the defendants previous motion to dismiss (Filing
No. 34).
Further, the plaintiff contends, since the deadline to amend pleadings is
currently June 10, 2013 (Filing No. 38) and additional claims may be added within a
statutory limitations period, the current motion to dismiss may become moot.
The court must deny the plaintiff’s motion for such a lengthy extension of time.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 requires a party to show good cause for any
extension of time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). The plaintiff fails to show good cause for
the extension requested. This case was initially filed on October 7, 2011. See Filing
No. 1. The plaintiff amended the complaint on November 20, 2012. See Filing No. 28.
The court will not create a four-month delay to await a potential motion to amend the
complaint. Furthermore, the defendants are entitled to a “just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination” of this action as it now stands. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Judicial efficiency
and the parties’ resources are better served resolving the defendants’ current motion in
light of the plaintiff’s current claims. Any additional claims may be resolved on their
merits when and if they are filed. Accordingly, the court will allow the plaintiff a brief
extension to fully respond to the defendants’ current motion to dismiss.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
The plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Reply to Douglas County’s
Second Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 53) is granted in part and denied in part, as set
forth herein.
2.
The plaintiff shall have until May 29, 2013, to file a response to the
Second Motion to Dismiss Douglas County Defendants (Filing No. 49).
Dated this 8th day of May, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge
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?