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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM Document 178 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Timothy A. Shimko, Sr. Plaintiff, vs. David Goldfarb, Rhona Goldfarb, Richard Ross, Marcia Ross, Milton Guenther and Kathi Guenther,

Timothy A. Shimko, Sr., Plaintiff, vs. Paul Woodcock and Bobbi Woodcock, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CV-04-78-PHX-FJM CV-05-1387-PHX-FJM [Consolidated]

ORDER

The court has before it a "Stipulation to Extend Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines" (doc. 175). In our order consolidating cases (doc. 164), we advised the parties that "given the age of both of these cases, no amendments or extensions to the Rule 16 scheduling order shall be granted." Order of Dec. 13, 2007 at 2 (doc. 164). Nothing in the stipulation suggests that there is any extraordinary reason or good cause to grant the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

extensions, especially where, as here, given the age of these cases and the demands of the Civil Justice Reform Act, the Rule 16 scheduling order cannot be amended. Accordingly, construing the stipulation as a joint motion, IT IS ORDERED DENYING it (doc. 175). DATED this 6th day of March, 2008.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM Document 178 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 2 of 2