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


File Size: 9.8 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Colorado
Category: District Court of Colorado
Author: unknown
Word Count: 330 Words, 2,075 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cod/20679/189.pdf

Download Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Colorado ( 9.8 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Colorado
Case 1:03-cv-01973-PSF-MJW

Document 189

Filed 11/28/2005

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Phillip S. Figa Civil Action No. 04-cv-02112-PSF-MJW (Consolidated with 03-cv-01973-PSF-MJW) WALKER GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. FIRST LAYER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and J.E.H. KNUTSON, Defendants.

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

This matter comes before the Court on two unopposed pending motions for extensions of time. Plaintiff Walker Group' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time within which to s file an application for attorney' fees (Dkt. # 188) is GRANTED. Pursuant to Rule s 54(d)(2)(B), F.R.Civ.P., which expressly permits the Court to extend the 14-day time for filing motions for attorneys' fees, Plaintiff Walker Group shall have through December 5, 2005 within which to file said application. Defendant Knutson' Motion for Additional Time To File Post-Trial Motions, s pursuant to Rule 59, F.R.Civ.P. (Dkt. # 187), however, is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 59(b) and (e), such a post-trial motion must be filed no later than ten days after entry of judgment. Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2), F.R.Civ.P., this Court has no authority to extend the time within which motions under Rules 59(b), (d) or (e) may be filed, as no

Case 1:03-cv-01973-PSF-MJW

Document 189

Filed 11/28/2005

Page 2 of 2

conditions for such extensions are stated within such rules. See e.g. Weitz v. Lovelace Health System, Inc., 214 F.3d 1175, 1179 (10th Cir. 2000) (" Rule 6(b) expressly prohibits a trial court from extending the time to file a Rule 59(e) motion. Rule 59 provides no exceptions to the ten-day rule. Thus, the district court lacked authority to grant Appellant's motion for additional time to file her Rule 59(e) motion." (internal ) quotations, brackets and citations omitted). Accordingly, Knutson' motion for s additional time to file Rule 59 motions cannot be granted and, therefore, is DENIED. DATED: November 28, 2005. BY THE COURT:

s/ Phillip S. Figa ________________________________ Phillip S. Figa United States District Judge

2