Opinion
2:22-cv-01438-JAD-DJA
11-01-2022
Michael Gerard Naessens, Plaintiff v. Bradford McLane, et al., Defendants
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME
[ECF NO. 21]
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
On October 26, 2022, pro se plaintiff Michael Gerard Naessens filed a document titled a “motion to extend time” to respond to defendant Bradford McLane's motion to dismiss. It appears, however, that the motion is actually a stipulation to extend time, as both parties agreed to the extension.[ Regardless, the parties have shown good cause for the extension, so the motion to extend time [ECF No. 21] is GRANTED. Naessens's response to McLane's motion to dismiss is due by November 10, 2022, and McLane's reply is due by November 17, 2022. The parties' discovery plan and scheduling order is due by December 11, 2022.
ECF No. 21 (motion to extend time); ECF No. 11 (McLane's motion to dismiss).
See ECF No. 21 (requesting the extension of behalf of both parties, and including the signatures of both parties).
Naessens is also reminded that defendants Amanda Leigh Hedrick and Lawrence H. Richardson Jr. filed a separate motion to dismiss on October 25, 2022.[ Naessens's response to that motion is due by November 8, 2022.
ECF No. 19.