Gonzalez v. Rhino-Back Roofing LLC
| Luis Gonzalez |
| Rhino-Back Roofing LLC |
| 3:2022cv01164 |
| September 14, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Charles S Haight |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Race) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 13, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ELECTRONIC ORDER. Defendants #10 Motion for Extension of Time until 11/11/2022 (the Motion) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff moves for an extension of time until November 11, 2022 to respond to Plaintiffs Complaint. Doc. 10 at 1. The Complaint was served upon Defendant on September 21, 2022, and Defendants answer was therefore due twenty-one days later, on October 12, 2022. See Doc. 7. On the day of the deadline, Defendant filed the instant Motion. Local Rule 7 provides, in relevant part, that [a]ll motions for extensions of time . . . will not be granted except for good cause. The good cause standard requires a particularized showing that the time limitation in question cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(b)(1). In addition, All motions for extensions of time shall include a statement of the movant that (1) the movant has inquired of all non-moving parties and there is agreement or objection to the motion, or that (2) despite diligent effort, including making the inquiry in sufficient time to afford non-movant a reasonable opportunity to respond, the movant cannot ascertain the position(s) of the non-movant(s). All such motions shall also indicate the number of motions for extension of time that have previously been filed by the movant with respect to the same time limitation. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(b)(2). Finally, All motions for extension of time shall be filed at least three (3) business days before the deadline sought to be extended, except in cases in which compelling circumstances warranting an extension arise during the three days before the deadline. Any motion for extension of time filed fewer than three business days before the deadline sought to be extended shall, in addition to satisfying all other requirements of this Rule, set forth reasons why the motion was not filed at least three business days before the deadline in question. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(b)(3). Defendants Motion fails to meet the foregoing requirements. Defense counsel does not make the particularized showing required to adequately demonstrate its diligence in meeting the deadline set by the Court and good cause for being unable to do so, stating only in general terms that the extension is necessary to enable counsel to obtain the information and documentation necessary to prepare a response and is necessary to investigate the facts and circumstances of the issues presented . . . in order to prepare an appropriate response. Doc. 10 at 2. Nor has he shown the diligence required in ascertaining the position of opposing counsel, including that his inquiry afforded opposing counsel a reasonable opportunity to respond; he gives no indication at all when opposing counsels position on the proposed extension was sought. See Doc. 10 at 2. Furthermore, the Motion was made fewer than three days before the deadline sought to be extended, with no reference to the Local Rules provisions regarding such motions and no showing of compelling circumstances for the delay. See generally Doc. 10. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for failure to adhere to Local Rule 7s requirements. As a courtesy to Defendant, and in light of the fact that due to Defendants same-day Motion the deadline has already passed, the deadline to respond to the Complaint is extended briefly, until October 19, 2022. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on October 13, 2022. (Eubank, J.)
|
| Filing 10 MOTION for Extension of Time until 11/11/2022 Respond to Complaint by Rhino-Back Roofing LLC. (Conway, Matthew) |
| Filing 9 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Rhino-Back Roofing LLC. (Conway, Matthew) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew G. Conway on behalf of Rhino-Back Roofing LLC Notice of Appearance by Paul H. Stoughton on behalf of Rhino-Back Roofing LLC (Stoughton, Paul H. (Conway, Matthew) |
| Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Luis Gonzalez. Rhino-Back Roofing LLC served on 9/21/2022, answer due 10/12/2022. (Reilly, Michael) |
| Filing 6 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Rhino-Back Roofing LLC* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Michael John Reilly* *Cicchiello & Cicchiello, LLP* *364 Franklin Avenue* *Hartford, CT 06114*. (Chartier, AnnMarie) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #4 Notice, #1 Complaint filed by Luis Gonzalez, #2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #3 Electronic Filing Order Signed by Clerk on 9/15/2022.(Chartier, AnnMarie) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE re Initial Discovery Protocols Signed by Clerk on 9/14/2022. (Attachments: #1 Attachment)(Chartier, AnnMarie) |
|
Filing 3
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr on 9/14/2022.(Chartier, AnnMarie)
|
|
Filing 2
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 11/13/2022 Discovery due by 3/16/2023 Dispositive Motions due by 4/20/2023 Signed by Clerk on 9/14/2022.(Chartier, AnnMarie)
|
| Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr added. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Rhino-Back Roofing LLC ( Filing fee $402 receipt number ACTDC-7068493.), filed by Luis Gonzalez.(Reilly, Michael) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Rhino-Back Roofing LLC. (Reilly, Michael) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Gonzalez v. Rhino-Back Roofing LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Luis Gonzalez | |
| Represented By: | Michael John Reilly |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Rhino-Back Roofing LLC | |
| Represented By: | Paul H.D. Stoughton |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
