Tanner et al v. Johnston et al
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 2 Complaint. Answer deadline updated for H&S Investments answer due 5/16/2011; Heath Johnston answer due 5/16/2011; Justin Johnston answer due 5/16/2011; Craig Lewis answer due 5/16/2011; Timothy Ross answer due 5/16/2011. denying as moot 10 Motion for Entry of Default. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 5/23/2011. (las)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
PATRICIA TANNER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
ANSWER AND DENYING MOTION
FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AS
MOOT
vs.
HEATH JOHNSTON, et al.,
Case No. 2:11-CV-28 TS
Defendants.
Rule 6(b)(1)(A) allows the Court for good cause to extend the time to file if a request
is made “before the original time or its extension expires.”1 Answers in this case were
originally due on March 8, 2011. The parties agreed to extend the time to file an Answer
until May 2, 2011. On May 2, 2011, before the expiration of the extended time, Defendants
filed the present Motion for an extension of time seeking an additional two-week extension
to prepare and file an Answer. Defendants explain that they had not yet prepared their
answer because they had focused their efforts during the previously allowed extension on
settlement negotiations. Plaintiffs responded with a Motion for Entry of a Default Judgment
1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A).
1
arguing that no further extension should be given because they had agreed to “generous
and repeated extension of time” during the parties’ settlement negotiations. Plaintiffs
subsequently filed a Response to the Motion to Extend Time amplifying on their theme.
The Court finds good cause to extend the time to file an answer. Plaintiffs do not
dispute that the parties’ previously agreed extension was for the mutually agreed purpose
of conducting settlement talks. The extension sought is brief—two weeks—and the
proposed Answer was filed within that period.
Plaintiffs also argue that any passage of
time decreases their chances of recovery but do not show specific likelihood of prejudice.
Further, since the filing of the Motion to Amend, the Plaintiffs have themselves taken
action—filing an Amended Complaint that adds a party— that will result in more delay than
the two-week extension requested by Defendants. It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer (Docket
No. 9) is GRANTED and the answer of Defendants Heath Johnston, Timothy Ross, Craig
Lewis, Summit Development & Management, and Justin Johnson filed by May 16, 2011,
is timely. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default (Docket No. 10) is DENIED as
moot.
DATED May 23, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
2
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?