Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03032/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03032-10/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

 1 The reason set forth by the EEOC for the need for the extension is that Ms.

Rosas was recently assigned to another case. As co-counsel in that case, Ms. Rosas is

responsible for taking and defending depositions and responding to discovery requests

and motions. The discovery cut-off in that case is May 30, 2008 and the dispositive

motion deadline is June 27, 2008. The EEOC requests more time for Ms. Rosas to fulfill

her obligations in the instant case, obligations that were assigned to her prior to her

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Creative Networks, LLC and Res-Care,

Inc., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3032-PHX-SMM

 ORDER 

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Sixty Day

Extension of Time to File a Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc.

100). After considering Plaintiff’s counsel’s reason for the extension, the Court finds that

the extension is unwarranted. This case has been pending since 2005, and the Court has

granted several extensions to the parties. The Court recently warned counsel that no further

extensions would be granted. See Doc. 69. Furthermore, Ms Rosas is not the only attorney

at the EEOC who would be capable of drafting a Response to Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgement.1

 

Case 2:05-cv-03032-SMM Document 101 Filed 04/29/08 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

involvement in the new EEOC case.

- 2 -

Accordingly, the Court finds that a sixty (60) day extension, from May 14 to July 14,

is not warranted to file a Response and will cause unnecessary delay in this case.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for

Sixty Day Extension of Time to File a Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgement (Doc. 100).

DATED this 28th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-03032-SMM Document 101 Filed 04/29/08 Page 2 of 2