United States District Court, D. Idaho
MARIA E. MENDOZA-JIMENES, Plaintiff,
BONNEVILLE COUNTY, BONNEVILLE COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS OFFICE, DANIEL R. CLARK, in his personal and official capacity, MICHAEL F. WINCHESTER, in his personal and official capacity, KOREY EDWARD PAYNE, in his personal and official capacity, KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., SHELLIE COUGHLAN, and JOHN DOES I-XII, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye, U.S. District Court Judge
before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension
of Time to File Response/Reply. Dkt. 10. Having reviewed the
record and briefs, the Court finds that the facts and legal
arguments are adequately presented. Accordingly, in the
interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court
finds that the decisional process would not be significantly
aided by oral argument, the Court will decide the motion
without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R.
7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the reasons set forth below, the Court
GRANTS the Motion.
Maria Mendoza-Jimenes filed this lawsuit on December 6, 2017.
On March 27, 2018, certain Defendants (hereafter Defendants
or “Bonneville County Defendants”) filed a Motion
to Dismiss. Dkt. 4. In this Motion to Dismiss,
Defendants claim Mendoza-Jimenes did not properly serve them
and asks the Court to dismiss the case.
did not respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, but
instead filed a Notice of Intent to Take Default on April 4,
2018. Dkt. 5. In this Notice, Mendoza-Jimenes stated that she
had served Defendants, but they failed to respond and as a
result, she would be asking the Court to take default if
Defendants did not appear within ten days from the date of
that Notice. Defendants responded to Mendoza-Jimenes'
Notice asserting that the Motion to Dismiss adequately
addressed their position on this issue and that the Court
needed to take that matter up first before taking any further
action. Dkt. 6.
clear from these filings that service of process is the main
question at issue so far in this case.
time to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss came and
went, as did the date that Mendoza-Jimenes stated she would
move for default if Defendants did not appear.
April 23, 2018, the Court sent an email to Counsel noting
that the various dates had passed and that the Motion to
Dismiss appeared ripe for a ruling. Because of the confusion
in filings, the Court asked if there was anything that it was
unaware of (such as discussions between the parties regarding
how to proceed). In response, Plaintiff's Counsel
indicated that he would like to respond to Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss, but was confused about the deadline by
which he was required to do so. Thereafter, Defendants filed
a notice with the Court asserting that Plaintiff's
failure to timely respond to the motion was consent (Dkt. 9),
to which Plaintiff filed the instant Motion seeking an
extension of time to file a response to Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10).
Local District Civil Rules mandate that once a moving party
has served a motion upon the opposing party, the opposing
party has 21 days to respond to the motion. Dist. Idaho Loc.
Civ. R. 7.1(c)(1). The moving party may file a reply brief,
if desired, within 14 days after receiving the non-moving
party's response. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(b)(3).
to timely respond to a motion is normally a waiver of that
opportunity and may be deemed consent unless an extension has
been granted. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(e)(1). The
standard for an extension is good cause. Dist. Idaho Loc.
Civ. R. 6.1(a).
case, Plaintiff's Counsel indicates that a docket entry
with a date in June caused him confusion and that he
erroneous believed he had until that time to respond to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Counsel is referring to
Docket 7. Docket 7 is a routine Notice that the Court sends
out in all civil cases when-as was the case here-the Clerk of
the Court assigned the case to an Article III district court
judge. This Notice is a reminder that the parties can consent
to have a United States Magistrate Judge in the District
preside over the case. The Notice itself explain this
process. In the body of Docket 7's text, the entry lists
the deadline to consent as June 5, 2018. As part of this
Notice, Docket 4 (the Motion to Dismiss) and Docket 1 (the