Ferguson v. Waid

Filing 24

ORDER granting in part Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Relief from Deadline; directing Clerk to RENOTE defendants' 16 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings : Noting Date 1/26/2018, signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT)

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

7
8
9

SANDRA L. FERGUSON,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

Case No. C17-1685RSM
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM A DEADLINE

BRIAN J. WAID AND THE WAID
MARITAL COMMUNITY,

14
15

Defendants.

16

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Deadline, filed

17
18

January 2, 2018, and noted for consideration on January 12, 2018. Dkt. #17. Plaintiff seeks an

19

extension of time to file a Response to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Dkt.

20

#16, otherwise due January 16, 2017. Id. at 1; see also LCR 7(d).1 Plaintiff requests the Court

21

strike the noting date for the Rule 12(c) Motion until after the parties have filed their Joint

22
23
24
25

Status Report. Id. at 2. Plaintiff argues that this relief is necessary in part “so that the parties
can agree on the timing and order of dispositive motions and Rule 11 motions, and discuss
Plaintiff’s proposed stay of discovery until these motions are resolved by the Court.” Id.

26
27
28

1

Defendants’ pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, brought under Rule 12(c), was filed on December
28, 2017, and noted for consideration on January 19, 2018. Dkt. #16.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM A DEADLINE
-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
7

The Court finds that it can rule on the instant Motion without waiting for Plaintiff’s
Reply brief, and that the timing of this Order is in the benefit of the parties given the imminent

8

deadline in question. The Joint Status Report has now been filed in this case. See Dkt. #19.

9

Thus, the relief Plaintiff is seeking has to a certain extent been rendered moot. However,

10
11
12

because Plaintiff has also indicated a need for more time to adequately research and prepare
responsive briefing, see Dkt. #19 at 34, and because she has filed the instant Motion

13

sufficiently in advance of the deadline, the Court will grant a short extension of time as stated

14

below. The Court finds that an extension of greater than one week has not been requested or

15

justified in Plaintiff’s Motion.

16

Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby

17
18

finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from a Deadline, Dkt. #17, is GRANTED

19

IN PART. The Response to Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss is now due January 22,

20

2018. The Reply brief will be due January 26, 2018. The Court directs the Clerk to renote this

21

Motion for January 26, 2018.

22
23
24

DATED this 12 day of January, 2018.

25
26
27
28

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM A DEADLINE
-2