Chiapparelli v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC et al
ORDER Granting 11 Motion to Extend Time. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC answer due 3/20/2018. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/12/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
DOMINICK J. CHIAPPARELLI,
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC, et al.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-03098-GMN-NJK
(Docket No. 11)
Pending before the Court is Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates’ motion to extend the
deadline to respond to the complaint. Docket No. 11. As the motion acknowledges, however, the
governing deadline expired two months ago. Id. at 1. To revive an expired deadline, a party must show
both good cause and excusable neglect. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). No such showing has been
made. Cf. Rybski v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 150152, at *5-6 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17,
2012) (collecting cases that settlement discussions, standing alone, are not grounds for an extension).
Nor are the parties permitted to stipulate to extend a Court deadline without Court approval. Local Rule
7-1(b). Nonetheless, given that there is no opposition and as a one-time courtesy, the Court will
GRANT the motion in this case. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.
Absent a request being granted saying otherwise, the scheduling order at Docket No. 8 applies
to Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 12, 2018
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?