United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 34) DEFENDANTS' APPLICATION FOR ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Docket No. 33)
RONALD E. BUSH, Magistrate Judge.
Now pending before the Court are the following motions: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 34), and (2) Defendants' Application for Order of Dismissal (Docket No. 33). Having carefully considered the record and otherwise being fully advised, the undersigned enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order:
Plaintiff brought this wrongful death action on July 25, 2014, amending his Complaint on October 15, 2014. (Docket Nos. 1 & 4). Defendants answered Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on November 7, 2014. (Docket No. 13).
On March 31, 2015, Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims raised by Plaintiff in his Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 32). Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(c)(1), Plaintiff's response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was due on or before April 24, 2015. Plaintiff neither responded to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment nor moved for an extension of time to so respond before April 24, 2015. On May 1, 2015, Defendants filed their Application for Order of Dismissal, pointing out Plaintiff's failure to respond and requesting that this Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 33).
On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that "counsel was ill for a week and needs one week from the date of this motion to file the response." (Docket No. 34, p. 2). Plaintiff's counsel's supporting affidavit acknowledges that the "response to Defendants' Summary Judgment was due a week ago" before stating:
That as a result of Affiant's illness the week of the 20th of April affiant is just now finalizing the response.
If granted a one week extension from the 4th of May affiant will have the response filed on or before that date.
(Docket No. 35, ¶¶ 3-4). Plaintiff's counsel provides no additional justification for extending the time for responding to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
On May 6, 2015, Defendants opposed Plaintiffs' request. (Docket No. 36). On May 8, Plaintiff responded to Defendants' opposition and also filed a response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket Nos. 37-39).
Typically, Local Civil Rule 7.1(c)(1) requires a response to a motion for summary judgment, along with any supporting materials, to be filed 21 days after service of the motion on the non-moving party. It is undisputed that Plaintiff's response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was due on or before April 24, 2015. FRCP 6(b) allows for the extension of such a deadline under certain conditions:
When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time:
(A) with or without motion or notice of the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time ...