From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burnett v. Bottoms

United States District Court, D. Arizona
May 5, 2006
No. CV 03-1891-PHX-LOA (D. Ariz. May. 5, 2006)

Opinion

No. CV 03-1891-PHX-LOA.

May 5, 2006


ORDER


This Court has received and considered Defendant Holley's Request to Enlarge the time to File a Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs.

The Court has confirmed with Plaintiff's counsel that he has no opposition to Defendant Holly's Request. The Court notes Defendant Holley's Request states the Court's Order (Dkt. #111) did not specifically address the time for filing a response, but the general rule is fifteen (15) days to file a response for motion for attorneys' fees. The Court disagrees and notes that the Order (Dkt. #111) does, in fact, set forth a specific briefing schedule with respect to the filing of a motion for reasonable attorney's fees, response and reply which overrides the Local Rules. Nevertheless, the Court will grant Defendant Holly's Request as there is no objection and there is no prejudice to Plaintiff by granting the subject motion.

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Holley's Request to Enlarge the Time to File a Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs to and including Friday, May 12, 2006. Plaintiff's Reply, if any, shall be due on or before Thursday, May 25, 2006.


Summaries of

Burnett v. Bottoms

United States District Court, D. Arizona
May 5, 2006
No. CV 03-1891-PHX-LOA (D. Ariz. May. 5, 2006)
Case details for

Burnett v. Bottoms

Case Details

Full title:Diane Burnett, Plaintiff, v. John Bottoms, Jennifer Pinnow, Robert Holley…

Court:United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: May 5, 2006

Citations

No. CV 03-1891-PHX-LOA (D. Ariz. May. 5, 2006)