Opinion
2:23-CV-00163-TL
03-21-2023
CHRISTOPHER WALKER, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL L. BARNETT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING LATE-FILED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Tana Lin, United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On February 28, 2023, Defendant Health Professionals Alliance (“HPA”) withdrew its motion for an extension of time to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint and filed an answer. See Dkt. Nos. 18, 19. in response to the withdrawn motion for extension, Plaintiff's Counsel asserted that the motion had been made in bad faith and should be denied, as Plaintiff's Counsel had agreed to a requested extension to an earlier date (February 23) via email. Dkt. No. 14. HPA is represented by different Counsel than the other Defendants in this matter and was not on the referenced email chain. Dkt. No. 17 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 15 at 4. While HPA failed to provide any reason for the requested extension in its briefing, it has since filed an answer. As Plaintiff has not shown any prejudice resulting from the answer being filed late and given the very early stage of the case, the Court will accept HPA's answer as submitted.
The Parties are REMINDED of their obligation to meet-and-confer with all other Parties before filing further motions.