Opinion
2:22-cv-01249-CDS-NJK
12-21-2022
ORDER
[Docket No. 15]
Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
It appears that the summons and complaint were served roughly four months ago. Docket Nos. 7-8; see also Docket No. 13. Nonetheless, Defendants have not appeared in this case and Plaintiff has not sought a default or taken other steps to prosecute the case. On December 2, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a status report. Docket No. 14. On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a status report indicating that the parties were in settlement discussions and, to the extent those were not successful, Plaintiff understood that Defendants intend to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Docket No. 15 at 2.
The Court encourages cooperation between counsel, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, but parties are not permitted to delay a case without obtaining judicial approval, Local Rule 7-1(b). To the extent parties wish to extend the deadline to respond to the complaint, they must seek relief from the Court regarding that deadline. No such request has been filed. The Court hereby ORDERS Defendants to respond to the complaint by January 6, 2023. The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff to serve a copy of this order on defense counsel, and to file a certificate of such service by December 22, 2022.
Failure to do so results in a variety of problems. In this case, the parties should have already engaged in the Rule 26(f) conference and the Court should have already entered a scheduling order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(2) (absent a finding of good cause, scheduling order must issue “within the earlier of 90 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days after any defendant has appeared”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f)(1) (Rule 26(f) conference must take place “at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b)”).
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.
IT IS SO ORDERED.