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 Home Mortgage, Inc., et al., 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA Document 132 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cathleen Channel, et al., Plaintiff, vs.

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

No. 03-0100-PHX-ROS ORDER

Pending is Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply and Motion To Strike. (Doc. #111). Plaintiffs seek an extension of time to file their reply to Defendants response to their motion for summary judgment (Doc. #103). Plaintiffs argue that since the Court has ordered the parties to participate in a settlement conference, the Court should grant an extension of time for Plaintiff to file a reply because the attorneys' fees Plaintiffs would incur in drafting the reply would have an adverse impact on the parties' ability to reach a settlement. Plaintiffs therefore request that they have until April 13, 2007, after the settlement conference, to file their reply. The Court does not find this argument persuasive and fails to see how settlement discussions will be adversely affected if Plaintiffs are required to file their reply before the settlement conference. The Motion for Extension of time is therefore denied.

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

Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. #109) should be stricken insofar as it purports to be a cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff argues that the deadline to file dispositive motions was November 10, 2006, and Defendants did not file this cross-motion until December 11, 2006. Therefore, Plaintiffs argue, the cross-motion should be stricken as untimely. Defendants argue that such a cross-motion is permitted by Rule 56 and that since the Court has the power sua sponte to grant summary judgment to a non-movant when there has been a motion but no cross-motion, the Court should allow Defendants to file their crossmotion for summary judgment. See Cool Fuel, Inc. v. Connett, 685 F.2d 309, 311 (9th Cir. 1982). While the Court may grant sua sponte summary judgment in Defendants' favor, this does not imply a right for Defendants to file a cross-motion for summary judgment past the deadline for dispositive motions. If Defendants wanted to file a motion for summary judgment, they should have done so prior to the November 10, 2006 deadline. Therefore, Defendants response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. #109) should be stricken insofar as it purports to be a cross-motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply and Motion To Strike (Doc. #111) is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART.

DATED this 23rd day of May, 2007.

-2Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA Document 132 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 2 of 2