Satterfield v. New York Life Insurance Company

W.D. Tennessee

Satterfield v. New York Life Insurance Company

DecidedDecember 14, 2022

Docket1:22-cv-01195

StatusUnknown

This text of Satterfield v. New York Life Insurance Company (Satterfield v. New York Life Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Satterfield v. New York Life Insurance Company, (W.D. Tenn. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________

MINDI SATTERFIELD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) No. 1:22-cv-1195-STA-jay ) NEW YORK LIFE INSUANCE ) COMPANY and LIFE INSURANCE ) COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the parties’ “stipulation,” evidencing their agreement to give Defendants an extension of time in which to file their answer. (ECF No. 9.) Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules of this Court provide for stipulations to extend the time in which one party must act. Rule 6(b) governs extensions of time and states that “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added); see also AES-Apex Emp. Servs., Inc. v. Rotondo, 924 F.3d 857, 867 (6th Cir. 2019) (“Docket control, however, is something that rests in the sound discretion of the district court.”). The Local Rules do not address extensions of time generally. However, Local Rule 16.5 prohibits trial continuances based only on a stipulation of the parties and specifically requires the filing a written motion unless there is an emergency. Local R. 16.5; Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b) (requiring all requests for court orders to be made by motion). The parties’ agreement to extend Defendants’ answer deadline is inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. Rule 6(b) clearly vests discretionary authority to extend time with district courts, and Rule 7(b) requires parties to a civil action to

request court action through motions, not stipulations. In any event, the Court will construe the parties’ stipulation as an unopposed motion for extension of time. The Motion is GRANTED. Defendants will have until January 12, 2023, in which to submit their answer or other responsive pleading. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ S. Thomas Anderson S. THOMAS ANDERSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: December 14, 2022

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________

MINDI SATTERFIELD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) No. 1:22-cv-1195-STA-jay ) NEW YORK LIFE INSUANCE ) COMPANY and LIFE INSURANCE ) COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the parties’ “stipulation,” evidencing their agreement to give Defendants an extension of time in which to file their answer. (ECF No. 9.) Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules of this Court provide for stipulations to extend the time in which one party must act. Rule 6(b) governs extensions of time and states that “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added); see also AES-Apex Emp. Servs., Inc. v. Rotondo, 924 F.3d 857, 867 (6th Cir. 2019) (“Docket control, however, is something that rests in the sound discretion of the district court.”). The Local Rules do not address extensions of time generally. However, Local Rule 16.5 prohibits trial continuances based only on a stipulation of the parties and specifically requires the filing a written motion unless there is an emergency. Local R. 16.5; Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b) (requiring all requests for court orders to be made by motion). The parties’ agreement to extend Defendants’ answer deadline is inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. Rule 6(b) clearly vests discretionary authority to extend time with district courts, and Rule 7(b) requires parties to a civil action to

request court action through motions, not stipulations. In any event, the Court will construe the parties’ stipulation as an unopposed motion for extension of time. The Motion is GRANTED. Defendants will have until January 12, 2023, in which to submit their answer or other responsive pleading. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ S. Thomas Anderson S. THOMAS ANDERSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: December 14, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Satterfield v. New York Life Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/satterfield-v-new-york-life-insurance-company-tnwd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack