§Why CasetextPricing

Hy Cite Corporation v. Badbusinessbureau.co, et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer

8 Cited authorities

  1. McLaughlin v. City of LaGrange

    662 F.2d 1385 (11th Cir. 1982)   Cited 131 times
    Finding that a busy practice as a solo practitioner in itself is not excusable neglect

  2. Schmir v. Prudential Insurance Company of America

    220 F.R.D. 4 (D. Me. 2004)   Cited 6 times
    Adapting factors relevant to Rule 55(c) issue of whether setting aside default judgment is appropriate

  3. Kleckner v. Glover Trucking Corp.

    103 F.R.D. 553 (M.D. Pa. 1984)   Cited 22 times

    On various motions by the parties in accidental death action, the District Court, Muir, J., held that: (1) defendant's motion to file answer out of time would be reluctantly granted since, as practical matter, otherwise resulting default judgment would likely have to be set aside upon defendant's request; (2) defendant's motion for leave to withdraw its admissions, arising out of untimely responses to requests, would be denied; and (3) notwithstanding denial of motion for leave to withdraw admissions

  4. Mawhinney v. Heckler

    600 F. Supp. 783 (D. Me. 1985)   Cited 3 times
    In Mawhinney, this court deemed an ALJ's finding that a claimant with progressive, unstable degenerative disc disease retained the RFC to perform the full range of sedentary and light work unsupported by substantial evidence when the reports of three medical experts "strongly corroborate[d] the claimant's subjective complaints of pain[,]" and the "record contain[ed] no evidence that [was] inconsistent with these reports."

  5. Maghan v. Young

    154 F.2d 13 (D.C. Cir. 1946)   Cited 23 times
    Holding there was no excusable neglect where delay in filing opposition to motion to dismiss was caused by appellant's counsel being "professionally engaged in attending to other matters"

  6. Citizens' Protective League v. Clark

    178 F.2d 703 (D.C. Cir. 1949)   Cited 16 times

    No. 10206. Decided September 6, 1949. Messrs. James J. Laughlin and William E. Owen, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Messrs. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, and Joseph M. Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Appellants' notice of appeal was filed December 18, 1948. On January 26, 1949, the District Court extended to March 15, 1949, the time for filing the record on appeal

  7. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 48,300 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

  8. Rule 55 - Default; Default Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 55   Cited 32,752 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Adopting similar language for acquiring default judgment against the United States