Chen v. Campbell et al
ORDER denying plaintiff's 10 Motion for Extension of Time by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Case No. C17-149RSM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
ANDREW CAMPBELL and ANDREW
HARTSTONE, INTERNAL REVENUE
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for an Extension of Time to
Respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.” Dkt. #10. Plaintiff’s one-page Motion reiterates
recent action on the docket and requests a 30-day extension to respond to Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss. Id. Plaintiff provides no further detail or argument in favor of this extension.
Plaintiff failed to note the instant Motion.
Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss was filed on March 31, 2017, and noted for
consideration on May 5, 2017. Dkt. #6. This noting date was further out than required by local
rule, providing additional time for Plaintiff. See LCR 7(d). The deadline for a response is
currently May 1, 2017. LCR 7(d)(3).
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND - 1
“A motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in
advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline.” LCR
7(j). Parties should not assume that the motion will be granted and must comply with the
existing deadline unless the court orders otherwise.” Id.
The Court finds that it can rule on the instant Motion without waiting for responsive
briefing. Plaintiff fails to set forth any basis for granting relief from the deadline. Proceeding
without an attorney is insufficient grounds for extension of deadlines without further
explanation. Further, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to file this request in a timely
Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond (Dkt. #10) is
DENIED. Any response brief to Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss is due no later than
May 1, 2017.
DATED this 28th day of April 2017.
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND - 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?