Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01598/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01598-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 28:1352 Miller Act

---

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

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF U.S. )

PREFAB, INC., an Arizona ) No. CIV 06-1598 PHX RCB

corporation, )

 ) O R D E R

Plaintiff, ) 

 )

vs. ) 

 )

NORQUAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., an )

Arizona corporation, et al., )

 )

Defendants. ) )

On February 8, 2007, Defendants filed their motion for summary

judgment (doc. # 17) in this action. Because the time to serve and

file a responsive memorandum has passed, see LRCiv 7.2(c), 56.1(b),

and App. A ("Time Chart"), with no response having been filed by

Plaintiff, Defendants filed a motion (doc. # 21) requesting the

Court to summarily grant their motion for summary judgment. While

the Court has discretion to do so if it were to find the

dispositive motion facially meritorious, see Henry v. Gill Indus.,

Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993), it declines to do so here.

Case 2:06-cv-01598-RCB Document 24 Filed 04/02/07 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

Approximately one week before Defendants' "Motion for Summary

Disposition" was filed, the Court received Plaintiff's stipulation

for substitution of counsel (doc. # 20), which the Court granted by

order entered March 23, 2007 (doc. # 22). In opposing Defendant's

request for summary disposition, Plaintiff explains that it "found

it necessary to replace its [former] attorney in this matter, and

other matters." Resp. (doc. # 23) at 1. It was during that time

that the response deadline lapsed. Plaintiff has accordingly

requested "a short extension of time" to respond to Defendant's

motion for summary judgment, which the Court construes as a motion

for extension of time. See id. at 2. The Court finds the neglect

excusable under the circumstances, particularly in light of the

family medical emergency that prevented Plaintiff's new counsel

from noticing his predecessor's oversight sooner. See id. at 2. 

Accordingly, for good cause shown, and finding no prejudice to

Defendants,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Disposition

(doc. # 21) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Response to Motion for

Summary Disposition (doc. # 23) is construed as a motion for

extension of time, and, so construed, is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall

have until April 16, 2007 to file a responsive memorandum in

opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

 DATED this 30th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01598-RCB Document 24 Filed 04/02/07 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

Copies to counsel of record.

Case 2:06-cv-01598-RCB Document 24 Filed 04/02/07 Page 3 of 3