Opinion
1:21-cv-01103-NE-SAB
12-27-2021
JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. DERRAL ADAMS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS DERRAL ADAMS, JANEL ESPINOZA, AND DEBORAH K. JOHNSON TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
(ECF No. 23)
This action was filed on July 20, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) On November 19, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a status report concerning the status of service on Defendants Derral Adams (“Adams”), Janel Espinoza (“Espinoza”), and Deborah K. Johnson (“Johnson”). (ECF No. 18.) On November 29, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's request for a thirty day extension of time to file proofs of service as to these Defendants. (ECF No. 21.) On December 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed an executed summons as to Defendant Adams, but it does not appear any other summons were returned as executed as to Defendants Espinoza or Johnson. (ECF No. 22.)
On December 27, 2021, Defendants Derral Adams, Janel Espinoza, and Deborah K. Johnson filed an ex parte application for a 28-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's complaint, pursuant to Local Rule 144(c). (ECF No. 23.) Defendants proffer that good cause exists for an extension as this is the first extension of time and an extension of time would allow them sufficient time to prepare a motion to dismiss and meet and confer with Plaintiff about the motion to dismiss. Defendants further proffer that good cause exists to grant this relief on an ex parte basis because of the routine nature of such extensions of time, and because Defendants' counsel emailed Plaintiffs attorneys about an extension of time three times but never received a response.
Local Rule 144(c) provides that the “Court may, in its discretion, grant an initial extension ex parte upon the affidavit of counsel that a stipulation extending time cannot reasonably be obtained, explaining the reasons why such a stipulation cannot be obtained and the reasons why the extension is necessary.” Given the proffered reason for the extension, and the basis for seeking ex parte relief, the Court finds good cause to grant the Defendants' application to extend the time to file a responsive pleading.
To the extent such extension is needed for each of these Defendants, despite the Court only being aware of a summons executed as to Defendant Adams.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' ex parte application to extend the time to file a responsive pleading (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED; and
2. The time for Defendants Derral Adams, Janel Espinoza, and Deborah K. Johnson to file responsive pleading is extended by a period of twenty-eight (28) days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.