Tanner et al v. Johnston et al, No. 2:2011cv00028 - Document 22 (D. Utah 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 2 Complaint. Answer deadline updated for H&S Investments answer due 5/16/2011; Heath Johnston answer due 5/16/2011; Justin Johnston answer due 5/16/2011; Craig Lewis answer due 5/16/2011; Timothy Ross answer due 5/16/2011. denying as moot 10 Motion for Entry of Default. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 5/23/2011. (las)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION PATRICIA TANNER, et al., Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER AND DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AS MOOT vs. HEATH JOHNSTON, et al., Case No. 2:11-CV-28 TS Defendants. Rule 6(b)(1)(A) allows the Court for good cause to extend the time to file if a request is made before the original time or its extension expires. 1 Answers in this case were originally due on March 8, 2011. The parties agreed to extend the time to file an Answer until May 2, 2011. On May 2, 2011, before the expiration of the extended time, Defendants filed the present Motion for an extension of time seeking an additional two-week extension to prepare and file an Answer. Defendants explain that they had not yet prepared their answer because they had focused their efforts during the previously allowed extension on settlement negotiations. Plaintiffs responded with a Motion for Entry of a Default Judgment 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). 1 arguing that no further extension should be given because they had agreed to generous and repeated extension of time during the parties settlement negotiations. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Response to the Motion to Extend Time amplifying on their theme. The Court finds good cause to extend the time to file an answer. Plaintiffs do not dispute that the parties previously agreed extension was for the mutually agreed purpose of conducting settlement talks. The extension sought is brief two weeks and the proposed Answer was filed within that period. Plaintiffs also argue that any passage of time decreases their chances of recovery but do not show specific likelihood of prejudice. Further, since the filing of the Motion to Amend, the Plaintiffs have themselves taken action filing an Amended Complaint that adds a party that will result in more delay than the two-week extension requested by Defendants. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer (Docket No. 9) is GRANTED and the answer of Defendants Heath Johnston, Timothy Ross, Craig Lewis, Summit Development & Management, and Justin Johnson filed by May 16, 2011, is timely. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Default (Docket No. 10) is DENIED as moot. DATED May 23, 2011. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
