Opinion
23-4013-EFM-RES
02-28-2023
MIDFIRST BANK, Plaintiff, v. ANNETTE JETER-SIPPLE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Rachel E. Schwartz United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Defendants Annette Jeter-Sipple and Gary Sipple's (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Extension of Time. ECF No. 4. On February 13, 2023, this case, which appears to involve a residential mortgage foreclosure, was removed from the Shawnee County District Court. ECF No. 1.
On February 15, 2023, Defendants filed this Motion. ECF No. 4. The Court denies the Motion for two reasons. First, the Motion does not state whether there has been prior consultation with Plaintiff and its views on the Motion, in violation of D. Kan. Rule 6.1(a). Second, the Motion does not contain a date by which any act is due or if any prior extensions were granted for this deadline, in violation of D. Kan. Rule 6.1(b). It is unclear from the Motion what specific deadlines Defendants are seeking to extend. Defendants reference that they have not received any documents Plaintiff has filed since March 28, 2022, id. at 1, but at most this would be Plaintiff's deadline, not a deadline requiring any actions by Defendants.
Defendants move for an extension of time under 49 C.F.R. § 1503.617. But 49 C.F.R. § 1503.617 govern extensions of time in the rules of practice in Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) Civil Penalty Actions.
Defendants also ask for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's pleadings and motions to the Court, “[p]referably sixty (60) days to prepare a lawful defense of said allegations by Plaintiffs. For research and evidence gathering.” ECF No. 4 at 1. But at the time the Motion was filed, there were no pleadings or motions in this Court awaiting a response from Defendants and Defendants do not cite to any other pending deadlines. While a motion to remand is now pending, ECF No. 5, that motion was filed more than a week after Defendants' Motion and the Court will not retroactively apply this Motion to that subsequent event.
If Defendants file any future motions to extend deadlines, any such motion must specifically explain why an extension is needed for that deadline and must comply with the District's Local Rules, including D. Kan. Rule 6.1.
For the reasons explained above, Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time is DENIED. The Clerk's Office is ordered to mail this Order to Defendants via certified U.S. Mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.