Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

i ————“. Case 3:03-cv-00400-CFD Document 31 Filed 01/21/2004 Page 1 of1 i
l
I DH r
i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
i SAMUEL BOWENS : NO. 3:0*3SV00400(CFD) J
vs. Q W _. 4
MARK STRANGE, ET AL. JANUARY p:l4, 2004. A
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME .WITHIN p
WHICH TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING,
The defendants in the above—captioned matter respectfully move this Court for a thirty-
day extension of time within which to tile a pleading responsive to the plaintiffs complaint, up
( Ilnin to anriiincluding February ll, 2004. In support of this motion, the defendants represent as i
nig E -.-· followsii I-
. fi On November 3, 2003, the defendants in this matter moved for Security for Costs !
Eg E, ‘ Ht i in the éaniount of $500.00. On November 10, 2003, this Court granted the motion, ordering the
i, ' s§ plaintiff to provide security for costs in the amount of $500.00. Since that time, the plaintiff has
failed to post such a security. On December 23, 2003, the defendants moved for summary
i ‘ dismissal, which motion is currently pending before this Court. In addition this Court has issued
an Order To Show Cause by January 30, 2004 as to why the defendants’ Motion For Summary
dismissal should not be granted. It would be preferable to have the Motion for Summary
Dismissal resolved before the parties spend time and resources addressing this matter further.
2. This is the third motion for an extension of time to tile a responsive pleading
since the Court’s ruling on defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement, but the first I
motion for an extension of time since the Motion for Summary Dismissal was filed. I
l
I
l
l
l
l
l
. . J l
1