Roe v. Seatree PLLC et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 13 Motion to Enlarge Time to Reply re:Defendant's CR 12 (b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. The Response to Defendants' pending Motion to Dismiss is due today, November 27, 2017. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

Case No. C17-1623RSM

JANET ROE,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM A
DEADLINE

SEATREE PLLC, et al.

14
Defendants.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Enlarge Time to Reply re:

17

Defendant’s CR 12 (b)(6) Motion to Dismiss,” filed November 22, 2017, and noted for

18

consideration on December 1, 2017. Dkt. #13. Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file a

19
20
21

Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. #5, otherwise due November 27, 2017. Id. at
2; see also LCR 7(d)(3).1 Plaintiff admits that she filed this Motion “as soon as she became

22

aware of the need for additional time, which was after an effective deadline created by this

23

District Court’s local Motion Noting Rules.” Id. Plaintiff requests that the deadline to file the

24
25
26

Response be extended to “at least mid-to-late January.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff explains that her
counsel filed this Motion late “due to a heavily overloaded schedule,” and argues that

27
28

1

Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss was filed on November 9, 2017, and noted for consideration on
December 1, 2017. Dkt. #5.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM A DEADLINE - 1

1
2

Defendants will not be prejudiced by the extension of this deadline. Id. Plaintiff argues that
there is no “ill intent” in filing this Motion. Id. at 4.

3

“A motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in

4

advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline.” LCR

5
6
7

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.

8

The Court finds that it can rule on the instant Motion without waiting for responsive

9

briefing. Plaintiff fails to set forth good cause for failing to file this Motion sufficiently in

10
11
12

advance of the deadline at issue. Plaintiff’s counsel has been aware of the Motion to Dismiss
for two weeks, and nothing submitted indicates an inability to file the instant, simple Motion

13

earlier. Plaintiff also fails to set forth good cause for granting the requested relief. Plaintiff

14

explains the delay in filing the initial Motion, but does not explain why there is a need for

15

additional time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss in this case is not

16

overly complex, and contains only five pages of argument. See Dkt. #5. It is not self-evident

17
18

to the Court why more time is needed. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline

19

by over a month is unreasonable and baseless. Although there is no indication of “ill intent” or

20

prejudice to Defendants, the burden is on Plaintiff to show why this extension is warranted, and

21

Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden. Accordingly, the Court will deny this Motion.

22
23
24

Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Enlarge Time to Reply re: Defendant’s CR 12

25

(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss,” Dkt. #13, is DENIED. The Response to Defendants’ pending

26

Motion to Dismiss is due today, November 27, 2017.

27
28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM A DEADLINE - 2

1

DATED this 27 day of November, 2017.

2
3
4
5

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM A DEADLINE - 3