UKA v. MAMA'S BAR GRILL RESTAURANT

Full title: SAM UKA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAMA'S BAR GRILL RESTAURANT, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

Date published: Feb 9, 2006

No. 4:06-CV-29 CAS (E.D. Mo. Feb. 9, 2006)

Opinion

No. 4:06-CV-29 CAS.

February 9, 2006

ORDER

CHARLES SHAW, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the pro se plaintiffs' Motion to Deny Defendants' Extension of Time to Answer the Complaint. Plaintiffs object to defendants' request for an additional thirty days to respond to the complaint. The Court previously granted defendants' motion on February 2, 2006.

Plaintiffs assert that because of prior litigation among the parties, defendants should be able to answer the complaint within the normal time limit and that granting defendants the time they seek "will be an unjust reward that would not serve any good in governing to secure a just, fair, speedy, and an inexpensive action the law permits for this case." Pls.' Motion at 3. Plaintiffs also assert that defendants "like in the past" are "attempting to start this civil action by twisting the truth and withholding the facts from this Office of Justice." Id.

This Court routinely grants motions for additional time to respond to a complaint. The pro se plaintiffs in this case filed an extremely long complaint (66 pages), which could take an attorney a longer period of time to formulate a response to, whether or not the attorney is familiar with the background of the case. This Court cannot devote its limited judicial resources to delving into an investigation of the parties' prior litigation history prior to ruling on a routine request for additional time to answer at the beginning of a case. Plaintiffs' motion to deny defendants' extension of time to answer the complaint will therefore be denied.

Plaintiffs are advised that pro se litigants are not excused from complying with court orders or substantive and procedural law, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. See Bennett v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 295 F.3d 805, 808 (8th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs are also advised that the Court expects them to refrain from making personal attacks on defendants and their counsel and should confine themselves to a straightforward presentation of the merits of their case.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to deny defendants' extension of time to answer the complaint is DENIED. [Doc. 7]