Opinion
Case No. 11CV679
01-06-2012
PAULA STANTON, a Colorado resident Plaintiff v. ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a foreign corporation; and ARROW INSURANCE MANAGEMENT, INC., a Colorado corporation Defendants
GRANTED WITH AMENDMENTS
The moving party is hereby ORDERED to provide a copy of this Order to any pro se parties who have entered an appearance in this action within 10 days from the date of this order.
BY THE COURT:
________________
Murk D. Thompson
District Court Judge
DATE OF ORDER INDICATED ON ATTACHMENT
COURT USE ONLY
Division: T
ORDER
THIS MATTER, coming before the Court on Defendant Encompass Indemnity Company's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint, and the Court being fully advised in the premises,
Hereby grants Defendant Encompass Indemnity Company an extension of time of up to and including January 17, 2012, within which to file an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint.
________________
District Court Judge
This document constitutes a ruling of the court and should be treated as such.
Court: CO Summit County District Court 5th JD
Judge: Mark Thompson
File & Serve Transaction ID: 41645763
Current Date: Jan 06, 2012
Case Number: 2011CV679
Case Name: STANTON, PAULA vs. ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY COMPANY et al
Court Authorizer
Comments:
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's objection, the gist of which is that an extension is proper, but only if defendant's substantive right to file a responsive pleading other than an answer is forfeited. Given the record before it, the Court has no means to balance the potential harm of a few days delay against any prejudice that might result to defendant. Moreover, the requested extension is modest and this is the first extension sought by the defendant. The Court also notes that there is no evidence of service with respect to the other defendant, which necessarily means that there will some further delay in these proceedings. In sum, the Court cannot, on the basis of a few day's delay, circumscribe the defendant's right to file a responsive pleading other than an answer. Doing so would, in essence, require the Court to accept the allegations in the complaint as true. The standard for view of a motion to expand the time for filing is good cause. Based on the reasons set forth in the motion, the Court finds good cuase has been adequately demonstrated. With respec to the future course of these proceedings, the Court reminds counsel of the obligation to confer prior to filing any motion and also that motions interposed only for purposes of delay run afoul of the obligations set forth in Rule 11.
Judge Mark Thompson