Halford v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. et al

Filing 30

ORDER that 25 Hartford's Motion to Extend Time to Respond re 23 Amended Complaint by 14 days is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 9/22/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

MICHAEL HALFORD,

Case No. 2:15-cv-00716-JAD-PAL

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,

(Mot Ext Time – Dkt. #25)
HARTFORD
FINANCIAL
GROUP, INC., et al.,

SERVICES
Defendants.

12
13

ORDER

v.

Before the court is Hartford’s Motion to Extend Time to Respond to First Amended

14

Complaint by 14 Days (Dkt. #25).

15

Opposition (Dkt. #26).

16

The court has considered the motion and Plaintiff’s

Hartford requests a 14-day extension of time to file a responsive pleading to the first

17

amended complaint which was filed August 20, 2015.

18

September 2, 2015, before the September 7, 105 deadline for filing a responsive pleading.

19

Counsel for Hartford requested a 14-day extension of time from opposing counsel who declined

20

to stipulate. The 14-day extension was requested to give counsel for Hartford sufficient time to

21

“synthesize the allegations, facts, arguments and evidence” to support a motion to dismiss the

22

extra-contractual claims, and a motion for summary judgment concerning the breach of contract

23

claim and extra-contractual claims.

The motion to extend was filed

24

Plaintiff opposes the motion asserting that after the August 10, 2015 hearing on the

25

motion to dismiss the original complaint, Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint to address

26

the court’s concerns. Hartford has been in possession of the set of facts Plaintiff has been

27

alleging since before the August 10, 2015 hearing which was set out in Plaintiff’s opposition to

28

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff
1

1

argues good cause for a 14-day extension does not exist.

2

Plaintiff’s opposition was filed

September 17, 2015.

3

Hartford filed its Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #27) and Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.

4

#28) on September 21, 2015 before the deadline for filing a reply to the motion to extend.

5

Plaintiff’s opposition does not claim he will be prejudiced by the modest extension requested.

6

Having reviewed and considered the matter,

7

IT IS ORDERED that Hartford’s Motion to Extend Time to Respond to First Amended

8
9

Complaint by 14 Days (Dkt. #25) is GRANTED.
DATED this 22nd day of September, 2015.

10
11
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2