From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HELM v. CHATFIELD

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
Apr 7, 2011
Case No. 2:10-cv-746-FtM-29SPC (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 2:10-cv-746-FtM-29SPC.

April 7, 2011


ORDER


This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Serve a Responsive Pleading 21 Days After Service of Last Defendant (Doc. #35) filed on April 5, 2011. Upon meeting and conferring pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g), Plaintiff pro se agreed to a 21-day extension for Defendants who have been served with process in this case to serve a responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Thus, Defendants filed a Motion requesting the extension on April 4, 2011 (Doc. #32), which the Court granted for good cause on April 5, 2011 (Doc. #33). Thus, Defendants Liem, Kelly, Vaccaro, Wilson, and Bolivar have up to and including April 29, 2011 to file their responsive pleading. The Court has not granted an extension of time for any of the last Defendants that remain to be served to file a responsive pleading and will not do so until a motion for extension is filed. Therefore, Plaintiff's opposition to allowing an extension of time for the remaining Defendants to serve a responsive pleading is due to be denied as it is premature.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Serve a Responsive Pleading 21 Days After Service of Last Defendant (Doc. #35) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 7th day of April, 2011.


Summaries of

HELM v. CHATFIELD

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
Apr 7, 2011
Case No. 2:10-cv-746-FtM-29SPC (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2011)
Case details for

HELM v. CHATFIELD

Case Details

Full title:Brian Helm, Plaintiff, v. Larry Chatfield, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division

Date published: Apr 7, 2011

Citations

Case No. 2:10-cv-746-FtM-29SPC (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2011)