Walker v. 300 South Main, No. 2:2005cv00442 - Document 256 (D. Utah 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION denying as moot 254 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 04/20/2009. (asp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION JACK WALKER, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT vs. 300 SOUTH MAIN, LLC., Case No. 2:05-CV-442 TS Defendant. 300 South Main s counsel seeks a brief extension of time to file an objection to Walker s Bill of Costs on the grounds that counsel incorrectly believed the response time was 15 days instead of 10 days. The Court finds the Bill of Costs was filed on April 1, 2009. Under Fed. R. Civ P. 6(a)(b)(2), weekends and holidays are excluded in computing the tenday objection period because it is less than eleven days. Further, the three-day mailing rule applies when a document, such as the Bill of Costs, is served electronically.1 Thus, the Objection would have been due on April 18, 2009, a Saturday. When the last day falls 1 District of Utah CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Manual, ยง II (H)(5). 1 on a weekend, the time is extended to the following Monday,2 in this case, April 20, 2009. The Objection was filed on April 17, 2009,3 and was timely. Therefore, the Motion to Extend the time to file an objection is moot because it was timely filed. It is therefore ORDERED that Respondent s Motion for Extension of Time (Docket No. 254) is DENIED AS MOOT. DATED April 20, 2009. BY THE COURT: ___________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(3). 3 Docket No. 255. 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.
