From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alvarez v. Kernan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 2, 2018
Case No. 1:17-cv-00609-DAD-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 1:17-cv-00609-DAD-EPG (PC)

01-02-2018

RAUL ALVAREZ, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT KERNAN and SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, NUNC PRO TUNC, TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING, AND VACATING ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO MOVE FOR DEFAULT AND FILE MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 22 & 23)

On October 13, 2017, Defendants filed a "stipulation for first extension of time for Defendants to file response to complaint." (ECF No. 15). Under this stipulation, Defendants had until November 20, 2017, to respond to the complaint. (Id.).

On November 9, 2017, Defendants filed a request for an extension of time to respond to the complaint. (ECF No. 17). "Defendants request[ed] that their responsive pleading be due on or before December 11, 2017." (Id. at 1). This request was granted. (ECF No. 20).

On December 11, 2017, the Court issued findings and recommendations, recommending that "all claims and defendants, except for Plaintiff's claim against defendants Frauenheim and Kernan for violation of Plaintiff's right to equal protection, be DISMISSED (with Plaintiff's state law claims being dismissed without prejudice)." (ECF No. 21, p. 9).

Because Defendants did not file their responsive pleading on or before December 11, 2017, the Court issued an order setting a deadline for Plaintiff to move for default and file a motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 22).

On December 15, 2017, Defendants filed a request for extension of time, nunc pro tunc, to file responsive pleading. (ECF No. 23). Defendants state that they were prepared to timely file a responsive pleading, but that they believed that the newly entered findings and recommendations rendered the Court's screening order moot.

Given the confusion created by the issuance of the findings and recommendations on December 11, 2017, the Court will vacate its order setting deadline for Plaintiff to move for default and file motion for default judgment (ECF No. 22) and grant Defendants' request for an extension of time nunc pro tunc (ECF No. 23).

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The order setting deadline for Plaintiff to move for default and file motion for default judgment (ECF No. 22) is VACATED; and

2. Defendants' request for an extension of time nunc pro tunc is GRANTED. Defendants' have twenty-one days from the date the assigned district judge issues an order on the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 21) to file their responsive pleading(s).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2 , 2018

/s/_________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Alvarez v. Kernan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 2, 2018
Case No. 1:17-cv-00609-DAD-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2018)
Case details for

Alvarez v. Kernan

Case Details

Full title:RAUL ALVAREZ, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT KERNAN and SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 2, 2018

Citations

Case No. 1:17-cv-00609-DAD-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2018)