Jurado et al v. Stone et al

Filing 10

ORDER accepting Plaintiff's voluntary withdrawing 2 Motion for TRO; and withdrawing 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 9 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The Court will proceed to rule on the pending motion to dismiss 6 unless Plaintiffs file an amended Complaint by February 17, 2015. Signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 2/10/15. (kn)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ARISTIDES JURADO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:15-cv-74
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp

v.
AMY C. STONE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of
time. (ECF No. 9.) In this filing, Plaintiffs request a three-day extension in which to file an
amended motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs also indicate that they will soon be filing an
amended complaint. Alternatively, Plaintiffs indicate that, in the absence of an extension, they
voluntarily withdraw the pending motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 2.)
This Court cannot extend the deadline for filing an amended motion for injunctive relief
because no such deadline exists. The Court never set such a deadline, but only set a briefing
schedule related to the pending motions and a non-oral hearing date. It therefore appears that
what Plaintiffs are really asking is for this Court to hold in abeyance all pending motions so that
Plaintiffs have time to file new documents before this Court renders any decisions. In light of
Plaintiffs’ representation in their motion that “most of the controversies in the pending [motion
for injunctive relief] may be moot or the main facts have substantially changed” and given
Plaintiffs’ assertion that they will be filing new documents, it makes the most sense to permit
Plaintiffs to voluntarily withdraw their motion for injunctive relief so that they can proceed on a
motion based on the present facts. (ECF No. 9, at Page ID # 449.)

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for an extension (ECF No. 9) and accepts
Plaintiffs’ voluntary withdrawal of their motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 2). The Clerk
shall designate the motion for injunctive relief as withdrawn and remove the motion as a pending
motion on the docket. The Court will proceed to rule on the pending motion to dismiss (ECF
No. 6) unless Plaintiffs file an amended complaint by February 17, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2