Laurent v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 17

ORDER that 15 Motion to Extend Time to Repond re 6 MOTION to Dismiss is GRANTED. Responses due by 8/1/2014. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/15/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

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

PHILIPPE LAURENT,

9
10
11

2:14-CV-863 JCM (GWF)

Plaintiff(s),
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,

12
Defendant(s).

13
14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court is plaintiff Philippe Laurent’s motion for an extension of time.

16

(Doc. # 15). Plaintiff requests an extension in which to respond to defendant MTC Financial’s

17

motion to dismiss (doc. # 6).

18

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, represents that he is currently out of the country and is unable to

19

prepare an opposition by the current deadline. As the court is obligated to hold pro se litigants to

20

less stringent standards, the court will grant plaintiff’s request for an extension. See, e.g., Haines

21

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)(Pro se parties are to be held to less stringent standards than those

22

represented by counsel).

23

...

24

...

25

...

26

...

27

...

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for an

3

extension of time (doc. # 15) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Plaintiff’s opposition is due

4

no later than August 1, 2014.

5

DATED July 15, 2014.

6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-