Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:17-cv-02231_de70> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02231_de70 RegisterActionDate "2018-04-12" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02231_de70 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER: Upon consideration of the Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Dismiss 71 , and finding good cause, and being otherwise fully advised, the Motion 71 is GRANTED. In doing so, however, the Court notes two issues. First, Defendant (before the appointment of counsel) has already filed an answer 55 , raising the question of whether Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) may apply. See E.E.O.C. v. W.H. Braum, Inc., 347 F.3d 1192, 1195 (10th Cir. 2003). In light of counsel's recent appointment, if counsel determines after review that a motion under Rule 12(c) may be appropriate, the extension of time granted applies to such a motion as well. Second, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(c), stipulations or motions for extension of time should certify or show compliance of contemporaneous service on the client. The instant Motion does not. Future requests for extensions (or continuances) may be summarily denied absence such a certification/showing. SO ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 4/12/2018. (Text Only Entry ) (rmsec ) Modified on 5/1/2018 to correct Plaintiff to Defendant.(rmsec). (Entered: 04/12/2018)" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02231_de70 AdministrativeID "72" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02231_de70 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02231_de70 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-02231_de53 @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02231_de70 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-02231_de69 @default.