Chen v. Campbell et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying plaintiff's 10 Motion for Extension of Time by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc plaintiff

Download PDF
  1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Case No. C17-149RSM JOHN CHEN, Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND ANDREW CAMPBELL and ANDREW HARTSTONE, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendants. 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for an Extension of Time to 18 Respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.” Dkt. #10. Plaintiff’s one-page Motion reiterates 19 20 recent action on the docket and requests a 30-day extension to respond to Defendants’ Motion 21 to Dismiss. Id. Plaintiff provides no further detail or argument in favor of this extension. 22 Plaintiff failed to note the instant Motion. 23 24 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 25 26 27 rule, providing additional time for Plaintiff. See LCR 7(d). The deadline for a response is currently May 1, 2017. LCR 7(d)(3). 28 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND - 1   1 “A motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in 2 advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline.” LCR 3 7(j). Parties should not assume that the motion will be granted and must comply with the 4 existing deadline unless the court orders otherwise.” Id. 5 6 The Court finds that it can rule on the instant Motion without waiting for responsive 7 briefing. Plaintiff fails to set forth any basis for granting relief from the deadline. Proceeding 8 without an attorney is insufficient grounds for extension of deadlines without further 9 explanation. Further, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to file this request in a timely 10 fashion. 11 12 Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby 13 finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond (Dkt. #10) is 14 DENIED. Any response brief to Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss is due no later than 15 May 1, 2017. 16 DATED this 28th day of April 2017. 17 18 19 20 21 A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?