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

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