Korhonen et al v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest

Filing 32

ORDER Denying without prejudice 31 Stipulation for Extension of Time to Respond to 30 Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 04/22/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9

TIMOTHY KORHONEN, individually; JOSEPH
ODDO, JR., individually,

10

Plaintiffs,

11

vs.

12

SENTINEL INSURANCE, LTD.; DOES I-X,
and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive,

13
Defendants.
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-00565-RCJ-NJK
ORDER DENYING REQUEST
TO EXTEND DEADLINE

Pending before the Court is a Stipulation to extend the time for Defendant Sentinel

16

Insurance, Ltd. to file an initial responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

17

(Docket No. 30), filed on April 21, 2014. See Docket No. 31. Local Rule 6-1 requires that every

18

“motion or stipulation to extend time shall ... state the reasons for the extension requested.” The

19

pending Stipulation seeks to extend the time for Defendant Sentinel to file an initial responsive

20

pleading, but does not state the reasons that an extension is requested.1 Accordingly, the Stipulation

21

is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATED: April 22, 2014

24

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28

1

The Parties merely state “This stipulation is made in good faith, and is not anticipated or
intended to cause any delay to any party.” Docket No. 31, at 2.