Summary
finding that partially dispositive Rule 12 motion altered responsive pleading date under Rule 12
Summary of this case from Wagner v. Pruett (In re Vaughan Co.)Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-02202-ZLW-MJW.
January 11, 2008
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion For Default Judgment (Doc. No. 13). Plaintiff claims that Defendants have not timely filed a responsive pleading to her Complaint and seeks default judgment.
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on October 19, 2007, and served Defendants via certified mail on October 26, 2007. Defendants had until December 26, 2007 to file a responsive pleading. Defendants filed a Partial Motion To Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) on December 26, 2007. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(4)(A), the filing of a Rule 12 motion alters the deadline to file a responsive pleading to ten days after notice of the court's action on the motion. Defendants' Partial Motion To Dismiss was filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) (6). Therefore, the deadline to file a responsive pleading has not yet been reached. Accordingly, it is
No proof of service has been filed with the Court as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4( l). However, there is no dispute that Defendants had until December 26, 2007 to file a responsive pleading. See Mot. For Def. J., at 2 ¶ 5; Scheduling Order, at 3 ¶ 6(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(3)(A) (2007) (agency of the United States has sixty days to serve an answer).
Defs.' Partial Mot. to Dismiss, at 1.
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion For Default Judgment (Doc. No. 13; Jan. 9, 2008) is denied.