Independence Project, Inc., et al v. Herbst Development, LLC

Filing 10

ORDER Denying without prejudice 9 Stipulation to Extend the Deadline to File Response to the 1 Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/03/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
THE INDEPENDENCE PROJECT, INC., et al.,
9
Plaintiff(s),
10
vs.
11
HERBST DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
12
Defendant(s).
13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-1977-JCM-NJK
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION
TO EXTEND
(Docket No. 9)

Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend the deadline to file a response to the

15

complaint. Docket No. 9. Stipulations to extend Court deadlines are not effective absent Court

16

approval. See Local Rule 7-1(b). A showing of “good cause” is required for requests to extend

17

deadlines. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). The pending stipulation provides no reason whatsoever for

18

the requested extension, so the Court cannot find good cause exits. Accordingly, it is hereby

19

DENIED without prejudice.1

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED: December 3, 2013
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court recently explained to counsel for both parties here that stipulations for extensions
must contain the reason for the extension. See Independence Project Inc. v. Spring Oaks Shopping
Center, 2:13-cv-1446-JCM-NJK (Docket No. 11) (“Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend
the deadline to file an answer. Docket No. 10. Stipulations to extend Court deadlines are not effective
absent Court approval. See Local Rule 7-1(b). A showing of “good cause” is required for requests to
extend deadlines. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). . . . The parties provide no reason whatsoever for the
requested extension, so the Court cannot find good cause exists.”)