Blake v. Taboo Gentlemen's Club, LLC et al

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING PARTIES' JOINT MOTION 55 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

TAMMY M. BLAKE, a/k/a “Brooke,”
and TARA N. FELLERS, a/k/a “Alize,”
on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-2
(GROH)

TABOO GENTLEMAN'S CLUB, LLC
and CASEY McGEE,
Defendants.

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. 55], 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 Plaintiffs
request that they be granted an extension until October 19, 2012, to respond to
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 39]; (2) the Plaintiffs request that they
be granted an extension until October 24, 2012, to respond to Defendants' Motion to

Dismiss [Doc. 52]; (3) the Defendants request that they be granted an extension until
October 16, 2012, to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Seibert's Order Denying
Motion to Compel [Doc. 51]; and (4) the Defendants request that they be granted an
extension until October 19, 2012, to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend/Correct
Complaint [Doc. 48].
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. 55], 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