From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Platt v. Holland Am. Line, Inc.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Feb 6, 2023
2:20-cv-00062-JHC (W.D. Wash. Feb. 6, 2023)

Opinion

2:20-cv-00062-JHC

02-06-2023

THERESE ROHLING PLATT, Plaintiff, v. HOLLAND AMERICA LINE, INC., a Washington corporation; HOLLAND AMERICA LINE - U.S.A., a Delaware corporation; HOLLAND AMERICA LINE, N.V. LLC., a Curacao corporation; and HAL ANTILLEN N.V., a Curacao corporation, Defendants.


ORDER

John H. Chun United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff's Rule 6(1)(B) Motion to Extend Time to Respond to D[e]fendants' Motion to Strike Dr. Wood.” Dkt. # 61. Presumably, Plaintiff intends to bring the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1). As the motion was brought after the deadline at issue passed, the excusable neglect standard applies. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(B). Yet Plaintiff does not explain how she meets that standard.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion.


Summaries of

Platt v. Holland Am. Line, Inc.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Feb 6, 2023
2:20-cv-00062-JHC (W.D. Wash. Feb. 6, 2023)
Case details for

Platt v. Holland Am. Line, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:THERESE ROHLING PLATT, Plaintiff, v. HOLLAND AMERICA LINE, INC., a…

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Feb 6, 2023

Citations

2:20-cv-00062-JHC (W.D. Wash. Feb. 6, 2023)