Opinion
21-cv-145 (VSB)
08-24-2021
JOSUE PAGUADA, Plaintiff, v. RATIO CLOTHING, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER
VERNON S. BRODERICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case more than seven months ago. (Doc. 1.) Since that time, I have granted four requests from Defendant, on consent from Plaintiff, to extend its deadline to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint, (Docs. 8, 10, 12, 14.) When I granted Defendant's fourth request, I noted that I would be “highly unlikely to grant any subsequent requests.” (Doc. 14.) Nevertheless, a month later, the parties requested a 45-day stay of all deadlines in this case until August 23, 2021, representing that the parties were “finaliz[ing] . . . efforts to bring about the voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted in this action” and that they would “file a stipulation of voluntary dismissal” when they had done so. (Doc. 15.) Given that the parties represented they were close to resolving the claims in this case, I granted that request. (Doc. 16.) This deadline has come and gone and, inexplicably, the parties have not filed a notice of voluntary dismissal or status update, and Defendant still has not responded to Plaintiff's complaint. Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Defendant is directed to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint on or before September 14, 2021. While the parties may file a notice of voluntary dismissal in this case, I am otherwise highly unlikely to adjourn this deadline.
SO ORDERED.