Opinion
6:22-cv-1549-CEM-LHP
12-06-2022
JAMES MASSENGILL, Plaintiff, v. A. DUDA & SONS INC., Defendant
ORDER
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:
MOTION: JOINT MOTION TO STAY DEADLINES OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 14)
FILED: December 5, 2022
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The parties jointly move for a 75-day stay of all deadlines in this case while they discuss potential resolution. Doc. No. 14. Alternatively, if the Court declines to stay all deadlines, Plaintiff requests a 30-day extension of time to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss. Id. at 2.
Upon consideration, the parties' motion is due to be denied for failure to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a). In addition, the parties fail to establish good cause for an extension of all deadlines in this case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). Citing to potential settlement discussions, without more, does not suffice.
Nonetheless, the Court will grant the alternative request for an extension of time for Plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff shall respond to the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 12) on or before January 4, 2023.
The parties are cautioned that going forward, all filings must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and Court Orders. Future non-complaint filings may be stricken or summarily denied without further notice. See also Doc. No. 6.
DONE and ORDERED.