Sammons et al v. COR Clearing et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying Michael Sammons' motions seeking review of the Clerk of Court's text orders (Filing Nos. 11 and 16). Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ELENA SAMMONS and
MICHAEL SAMMONS,
8:14CV136
Plaintiffs,
vs.

ORDER

COR CLEARING, LLC,
CEDE & CO., and
THE DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on both of the plaintiff Michael Sammons’ motions
seeking review of text orders entered by the Clerk of Court granting the defendants’
extensions of time to file answers or otherwise respond to the complaint. See Filing
Nos. 11 and 16. In the motions, Mr. Sammons argues he is prejudiced by the delay
caused by the extensions, which were filed without the defendants’ counsel contacting
him in advance and granted without a showing of good cause as required by Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b).
The defendants each sought a thirty-day extension of time pursuant to the Civil
Rule of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska (Nebraska Civil
Rule) 6.1(a). The Clerk of court granted each motion, giving the defendants additional
time until June 20, 2014, and June 26, 2014, respectively to file answers or otherwise
respond to Complaint. See Filing Nos. 9, 10, 14, and 15. Prior to the defendants
seeking additional time to answer, the plaintiffs filed motions for partial summary
judgment. See Filing Nos. 6 and 8. In response to these motions, the defendants
sought a stay of the case or extension of time to respond. See Filing No. 18. The
plaintiffs opposed a stay or extension. See Filing No. 20. Nevertheless, on May 23,
2014, the court found legal justification existed for a brief stay of the summary judgment
response deadlines. See Filing No. 22. Similarly, based on this justification, the court
determined the defendants should have an extension of time, but shortened the time to
file answers or motions to dismiss to June 9, 2014. Id.

The court’s May 23, 2014, order renders Michael Sammons’ motion moot.
Although the defendants were under no obligation to confer with the plaintiffs prior to
seeking an extension of the answer deadline, the court did find good cause exists to
grant the defendants some additional time to respond to the Complaint. The court’s
May 23, 2014, order superseded the text orders entered by the Clerk of Court and
shortened the time period. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:
Michael Sammons’ motions seeking review of the Clerk of Court’s text orders
(Filing Nos. 11 and 16) are denied, as moot.
Dated this 6th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge

2