Lahoz v. Zeppelin et al
OPINION: #98256 The Defendants have untimely moved to extend their time to move for reconsideration and the order of March 10, 2009 (the "March 10 Order") denying the Defendants' prior motion to dismiss the complaint of the pro se plai ntiff Angel L. Lahoz ("Lahoz" or the "Plaintiff") under Rule 12(b)6, FRCP oralternatively under Rule 56, FRCP No good cause has been shown for the failure to move timely for reconsideration. However, the moving papers do establish that the affidavit on which the March 10 Order was based was submitted ex parte, was not served, and was not docketed. The fact upon which the March 10 Order was based, the unavailability of a grievance procedure, has been placed in issue by the ins tant motion. The failure to serve the affidavit on which the March 10 Order was based was overlooked, and the March 10 Order is vacated pursuant to Rule 60, FRCP. Discovery is to be completed within 45 days and a final pretrial conference will be hel d on January 20, 2010. The Defendants are granted leave to reserve their prior motions to dismiss within 20 days. 30 MOTION for Extension of Time. MOTION for Reconsideration. MOTION to Vacate. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 11/18/09) (db) Modified on 11/19/2009 (eef).
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?