Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00584/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00584-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Claudia Cristina Rosen, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Community Education Centers, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0584-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it the parties’ stipulation to extend time for defendant

Community Education Centers, Inc. (“CEC”) to file its responsive pleading to plaintiff’s

second amended complaint (doc. 54). Because plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third

amended complaint is currently pending (doc. 46), the parties request an order allowing

defendant CEC to wait to respond to the second amended complaint until either: (1) we grant

leave to file a third amended complaint, in which case defendant would respond to the third

amended complaint within the time allowed by Rule 15(a)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P.; or (2) we deny

leave to file a third amended complaint, in which case defendant would respond to the second

amended complaint within fourteen (14) days following entry of our order denying leave to

amend.

Plaintiff’s first complaint was filed March 15, 2010, over seven months ago (doc. 1).

We are now approaching the deadlines set in our Rule 16 scheduling order for the disclosure

Case 2:10-cv-00584-FJM Document 55 Filed 11/01/10 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

- 2 -

of witnesses and expert testimony (doc. 30). Plaintiff has already amended her complaint

twice, and has moved for leave to amend a third time. Given the age of this action and the

repeated attempts to amend the complaint, we cannot tolerate delay in the filing of a

responsive pleading. It is time to put pleadings to rest. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING the parties’ stipulation to extend time for

defendant to file its responsive pleading (doc. 54). 

DATED this 1st day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00584-FJM Document 55 Filed 11/01/10 Page 2 of 2