Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00504/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00504-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ellen Spiller and John Spiller, wife and

husband,

Plaintiffs

v.

ARAMARK LEISURE SERVICES

GROUP INC., an Arizona corporation;

ARAMARK SPORTS &

ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, an

Arizona corporation; LAKE POWELL

RESORTS & MARINA, an Arizona

corporation; JOHN DOE I, an employee of

Defendants, and JANE DOE I, husband and

wife; JOHN DOE II, an employee of

Defendants, and JANE DOE II, husband

and

wife; JOHN DOES III-X; JANE DOES IIIX; BLACK CORPORATIONS I-X; WHITE

PARTNERSHIPS I-X; AND GREEN

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES I-X,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-504-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the parties' Stipulated Motion for an Extension of Time to

Comply with the Deadlines Established in the Order of the Court entered October 11, 2006.

(Doc. 32). In the Court's Order dated May 25, 2007, the Court advised counsel, "in submitting

proposed orders for the Court's review, counsel must provide dates certain for each individual

proposed deadline." In lieu of complying with the Court Order, it appears that counsel simply

re-filed the identical proposed order that was filed with the original motion.

Case 2:06-cv-00504-SMM Document 33 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Counsel is to provide the Court with a proposed order which sets forth the original dates

certain and the proposed dates certain for each individual deadline that the parties seek to

extend. According to the Court's previous Order, proposed deadlines must fall on Fridays.

- 2 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING without prejudice the parties' Stipulated

Motion for an Extension of Time to Comply with the Deadlines Established in the Order of the

Court entered October 11, 2006. (Doc. 32).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may file a third request for an extension

wherein they provide the Court with a proposed order including dates certain for each

individual proposed deadline1

. 

DATED this 7th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00504-SMM Document 33 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 2