Opinion
C24-0733-JCC
07-12-2024
ORDER
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion for an extension of time to answer (Dkt. No. 9). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint (Dkt. No. 1) with the Court on May 28, 2024. The Clerk issued summonses the following day. (See Dkt. No. 2.) Following a June 27, 2024 appearance by counsel, (see Dkt. Nos. 5, 6), Defendant moved to extend the time to answer the complaint to July 31, 2023. (See Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiffs did not timely respond to this motion. See LCR 7(d)(2) (response due nine days after the motion's filing date).
LCR 7(b)(2) states, “if a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.” Accordingly, the Court FINDS that Defendant's motion has merit. The motion (Dkt. No. 9) is GRANTED.