Court Opinion

ID: 9370901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 22:06:08.149373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.560395
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL                                                                            02/14/2023

          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                      Case Number: DA 22-0563

                                        DA 22-0563
                                                                             FILED
 IN RE THE PARENTING PLAN OF:                                                 FEB 1 4 2023
 S.N.,                                                                      Bowen Greenwood
                                                                          Clerk of Supreme Court
                                                                             State of Montana
 ROBERT NEWHOUSE,

             Petitioner and Appellee,                               ORD E R
 v.

 MARION KEEZER, k/n/a MARION SCOTT

             Respondent and Appellant.

       On January 20, 2023, Appellee Robert Newhouse, via counsel, timely filed his

answer brief in this matter. Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 13(1), Appellant Marion Keezer,

k/n/a Marion Scott, had 14 days after service of the answer brief to file her reply brief—in

this instance, such brief was due on or before February 3, 2023. No reply brief was filed
and on February 7, 2023, the Clerk of this Court transmitted the case to this Court for

classification on appeal.
       On February 10, 2023, Appellant, via counsel, moved for an extension of time of an
additional 30 days to file the reply.        Although counsel asserts she is currently
"exceptionally scheduled in Court matters" that requires more time to draft the reply brief,

she does not acknowledge that her request for extension of time is itself untimely nor does

she offer any explanation for her failure to timely move for extension of time. Thus she
has not provided good cause for this untimeliness.
       IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellant's motion for extension of time to
file a reply brief is DENIED.

       DATED this 14th day of February, 2023.
    For the Court,

                 Chief Justice

2