Uchikura v. Willis Towers Watson Call Center

D. Arizona

Uchikura v. Willis Towers Watson Call Center

DecidedMarch 1, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-00002

StatusUnknown

This text of Uchikura v. Willis Towers Watson Call Center (Uchikura v. Willis Towers Watson Call Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Uchikura v. Willis Towers Watson Call Center, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Vladik Uchikura, No. CV-22-00002-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Willis Towers Watson Call Center, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Defendants have filed a motion for extension of time to respond to pro se 16 Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (Doc. 42.) Defendants seek a one-week 17 extension because their counsel “has had a family emergency that required time away 18 from the office.” (Id.) Defense counsel contacted Plaintiff to see if he would agree to the 19 extension request, but “Plaintiff stated he would oppose the request, despite Defendants 20 not having opposed Plaintiff’s requests for extensions.” (Id.) Plaintiff has filed four 21 motions for deadline extensions (Docs. 10, 19, 26, 31), each of which was granted. This 22 is Defendants’ first request for an extension in this matter. 23 The motion will be granted without further briefing. There is no conceivable 24 argument against permitting Defendants a one-week extension, particularly when the 25 reason for the extension is that their counsel had a family emergency. Agreeing to 26 reasonable extension requests is a basic civility in litigation, one that Defendants have 27 extended to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is reminded that “not only must pro se litigants follow the 28 same rules of procedure that govern other litigants, but they must also conduct || themselves with the same civility, decorum, and professionalism that is expected of 2|| attorneys,” including “the professional courtesy of agreeing to reasonable requests to 3 || extend deadlines.” Martin v. Pizza, 2022 WL 4000640, *2 (D. Nev. 2022). 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for extension of time (Doc. 42) is 6|| granted. The deadline for Defendants to respond to the TAC is extended to March 14, 7\| 2023. 8 Dated this 28th day of February, 2023. 9 10 Lom ee” ll f t _o—— Dominic W. Lanza 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

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

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Vladik Uchikura, No. CV-22-00002-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Willis Towers Watson Call Center, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Defendants have filed a motion for extension of time to respond to pro se 16 Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (Doc. 42.) Defendants seek a one-week 17 extension because their counsel “has had a family emergency that required time away 18 from the office.” (Id.) Defense counsel contacted Plaintiff to see if he would agree to the 19 extension request, but “Plaintiff stated he would oppose the request, despite Defendants 20 not having opposed Plaintiff’s requests for extensions.” (Id.) Plaintiff has filed four 21 motions for deadline extensions (Docs. 10, 19, 26, 31), each of which was granted. This 22 is Defendants’ first request for an extension in this matter. 23 The motion will be granted without further briefing. There is no conceivable 24 argument against permitting Defendants a one-week extension, particularly when the 25 reason for the extension is that their counsel had a family emergency. Agreeing to 26 reasonable extension requests is a basic civility in litigation, one that Defendants have 27 extended to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is reminded that “not only must pro se litigants follow the 28 same rules of procedure that govern other litigants, but they must also conduct || themselves with the same civility, decorum, and professionalism that is expected of 2|| attorneys,” including “the professional courtesy of agreeing to reasonable requests to 3 || extend deadlines.” Martin v. Pizza, 2022 WL 4000640, *2 (D. Nev. 2022). 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for extension of time (Doc. 42) is 6|| granted. The deadline for Defendants to respond to the TAC is extended to March 14, 7\| 2023. 8 Dated this 28th day of February, 2023. 9 10 Lom ee” ll f t _o—— Dominic W. Lanza 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Uchikura v. Willis Towers Watson Call Center, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uchikura-v-willis-towers-watson-call-center-azd-2023.