From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sensormatic Sec. Corp. v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.
May 5, 1983
97 F.R.D. 725 (D.D.C. 1983)

Opinion

         Plaintiffs filed motion to show cause. The District Court, Charles R. Richey, J., held that it is for the court, not the parties, to grant extension of time in cases pending before the court.

         Ordered accordingly.

          Christopher Sanger of Tucker, Flyer, Sanger & Lewis, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

          Jerome M. LeWine of Christy & Viener, New York City, for defendant.


         ORDER

          CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge.

         Upon consideration of plaintiff's memorandum to show cause, and the entire record herein, it is, by the Court, this 5th day of May, 1983,

         ORDERED, that defendant shall have until May 15, 1983 to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Counsel are reminded that it is for the Court, not the parties, to grant extensions of time in cases pending before it.


Summaries of

Sensormatic Sec. Corp. v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.
May 5, 1983
97 F.R.D. 725 (D.D.C. 1983)
Case details for

Sensormatic Sec. Corp. v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp.

Case Details

Full title:SENSORMATIC SECURITY CORP., Plaintiff, v. SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS CORP.…

Court:United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Date published: May 5, 1983

Citations

97 F.R.D. 725 (D.D.C. 1983)

Citing Cases

In re J a Concrete Contractors, Inc.

As to his contention that he was advised that an order granting the continuance would be signed, Mr. Speert…