Nesselrodte v. Underground Casino and Lounge, LLC

Filing 77

ORDER DENYING PARTIES' JOINT MOTION 76 FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINES. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 10/9/2012. (tlg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG

LEANN J. NESSELRODTE,
on behalf of Herself and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-92
(GROH)

UNDERGROUND CASINO AND
LOUNGE, LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PARTIES' JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINES
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the
parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time for Current Deadlines [Doc. 76], filed on October
8, 2012. In support of their motion, the parties assert that “[c]ounsels for the abovecaptioned parties have been engaged in good faith settlement discussions for the past 14
days,” and “[t]he parties wish to concentrate their efforts on the settlement discussions
rather [than] motion practice and meeting other deadlines, wish to avoid the Parties
incurring additional attorney fees and costs, and wish to avoid complicating settlement
discussions with fees and costs that, under the current deadlines, will continue to increase
substantially each day . . . .” The parties accordingly seek the following: (1) the Defendant
requests an extension until October 19, 2012, to comply with the Court's Order Granting
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Attorney's Fees and Costs [Doc. 74]; (2) the Defendant
requests an extension until October 19, 2012, to comply with and/or file any objections to

the Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Facilitate Identification and Notification of
Similarly Situated Employees [Doc. 73]; and (3) the Defendant requests an extension until
October 19, 2012, to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint [Doc.
71].
This Court has a strong interest in keeping scheduled dates certain. Changes in
dates and/or deadlines are disfavored. Therefore, any request, whether by application or
stipulation, to continue the date and/or deadline of any matter before this Court must be
supported by a sufficient basis that demonstrates good cause why the change in date is
essential. This Court does not consider the desire for prolonged settlement negotiations to
constitute such a basis. Therefore, the Court does not find good cause to grant the parties'
Agreed Motion for Extension of Time for Current Deadlines [Doc. 76], and the same is
accordingly DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record and/or
pro se parties.
DATED: October 9, 2012.

2