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)

Download PDF
  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

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?