From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Croyder v. Hetley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Jan 18, 2017
Case No. 16-2761-JAR-JPO (D. Kan. Jan. 18, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. 16-2761-JAR-JPO

01-18-2017

STEPHANIE CROYDER, Plaintiff, v. GEOFFREY W. HETLEY, et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiff Stephanie Croyder's Applications for Entry of Default as to Defendants Blitt and Gaines, P.C. (Doc. 17), and David Olefsky (Doc. 18). A defendant shall serve an answer within twenty-one days after service of the Complaint. But if a motion is filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), the defendant need not file a responsive pleading until fourteen days after the Court denies the motion. In this case, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 on the date their answers were due, which altered the time to file an answer. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's applications for entry of default for failure to answer within twenty-one days.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff Stephanie Croyder's Applications for Entry of Default as to Defendants Blitt and Gaines, P.C. (Doc. 17), and David Olefsky (Doc. 18) are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 18, 2017

S/ Julie A. Robinson

JULIE A. ROBINSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Croyder v. Hetley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Jan 18, 2017
Case No. 16-2761-JAR-JPO (D. Kan. Jan. 18, 2017)
Case details for

Croyder v. Hetley

Case Details

Full title:STEPHANIE CROYDER, Plaintiff, v. GEOFFREY W. HETLEY, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Date published: Jan 18, 2017

Citations

Case No. 16-2761-JAR-JPO (D. Kan. Jan. 18, 2017)