FLORES v. GREENE et al

Filing 16

LETTER ORDER denying as moot 13 Motion for Default Judgment ; granting 15 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendants' time to respond to the Complaint is extended, nunc pro tunc, through and including 8/17/16. Defendants' Answer, previously filed without leave of Court, (ECF No. 14) shall be deemed timely filed; etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 8/22/16. (sr, )(N/M)

UNITED STATES DISTRtCT COURt
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Bldg.
& U.S. Courthouse
50 Walnut Street
Newark, New Jersey 07102
(973-645-2580)

Chambers of

Joseph A. Dickson
United States Magistrate Judge

LEITER ORDER
August 22, 2016
To Pro Se Plaintiff Samuel Flores )'.ia US. Mail
To counsel ofrecord via ECF

Re:

Flores v. Green, et al.
Civil Action No.: 16-00901 (ES) CJAD)

Mr. Flores and counsel:
This will address Plaintiff's request for entry of default against Defend~ts Charles Green
and Alfaro Ortiz, (ECF No. 12), Plaintiffs motion for default judgntent against those defeniants,
(ECF No. 13), and Defendants Green and Ortiz's cross-motion for leave to file their answer <>ut of
l

time. (ECF No. 15). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7:8, the Court did not he~ oral
'
'
1
argument on these issues. Upon careful consideration of the parties' submissions, and for the
reasons set forth below, Defendants' cross-motion for leave to file; an answer, (ECF Na. \5), is
'

GRANTED. Plaintiffs applications for the entry of default and for a default judgment

.

a~ainst

Defendants Green and Ortiz, (ECFNos. 12, 13), are DENIED AS MOOT.
On June 23, 2016, Defendants Green and Ortiz filed an Application for an Extension of
Time to Answer, Move or Otherwise Reply Pursuant to Local CivilRule 6.1. (ECF No. 10). On
June 24, 2016, the Clerk of the Court granted that application, thereby extending those Defen.ahts'
time to respond to the Complaint through and including July 20, 2016. Defendants did notre$pond
to the Complaint on or before that date.

On August 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed both an application for the entry of default and a rrlotion
for default judgment against Defendants Green and Ortiz. (ECF Nos. 12, 13). On August 17,
2016, Defendants Green and Ortiz filed an Answer, albeit out of time and with4)ut leave of Court.
(ECF No. 14). The following day, those Defendants filed a motion for leave to file their Mswer
out of time. (ECF No. 15)
In Defendants' motion, counsel certifies that, while he was scheduled t-0 have surgery on
July 28, 2016, that procedure was moved up to July 18, 2016. (Cert~ of Alan Ruddy ii 3, ECF No.
15-1 ). When he returned to work following that procedure, he mistakenly believed that his cocounsel had already filed Defendants Answer. (Id.).
In light of counsel's representations concerning the reason fol! Defendants' failure to timely
answer, and considering that Plaintiff would not suffer any legitimate prejudice from the additional
extension Defendants seek, and for good cause shown, Defendants'' cross-motion, (ECF No. 15),
is GRANTED. Defendants' time to respond to the Complaint is extended, nunc pro tune, thtough
and including August 17, 2016. Defendants' Answer, previously filed without leave of Court,
(ECF No. 14), shall be deemed timely filed. As the Court has deemed Defendants' Answer to be
timely filed, Plaintiffs applications for the entry of default and for default judgment, (ECF Nos.
12, 13), are DENIED AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED

cc:

Hon. Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.

2

l

I

:

j