Opinion
1:22-cv-1533-GHW
03-10-2022
ORDER
GREGORY H. WOODS, DISTRICT JUDGE:
On March 10, 2022, counsel for the plaintiff filed a “Stipulation” executed by both counsel for the plaintiff and lawyers who represent themselves to be counsel for the defendants. Dkt. No. 19. Among other things, the document contains a stipulation “by and between the parties that Defendants' time to answer or move with regard to the Complaint shall be extended, by consent, subject to the Court's approval, to and including April 22, 2022 . . . .” The parties did not request the Court's consent to extend the answer deadline; nor did they comply with the Court's Individual Rule 1(F). Since the parties have not requested the Court's approval of the extension of the answer deadline in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules of Practice, the Court's approval is not granted. Simply filing a stipulation to extend an answer deadline is not effective, as expressly provided in the parties' stipulation.
Moreover, counsel for the defendants have not entered a notice of appearance in this case. The Court does not expect to grant any future application to extend the answer deadline before counsel has entered a notice of appearance in the case.
The parties are again ordered to review and comply with the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases.
SO ORDERED.