Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TREROTOLA v. LOCAL 72 OF THE INT'L BHD. OF TEAMSTE

April 2, 1996

VINCENT TREROTOLA, Plaintiff, against LOCAL 72 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AND LOCAL 858 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Defendants.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: EDELSTEIN

 EDELSTEIN, District Judge :

 WHEREAS defendants Local 72 and Local 858 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("defendants") move this Court to extend defendants' time to respond to plaintiff Vincent Trerotola's ("plaintiff") motion for summary judgement, pursuant to this Court's Individual Rule 2(b) ("Rule 2(b)"), or in the alternative, to accept a late response to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 6(b)(2); and

 WHEREAS plaintiff filed the underlying motion for summary judgment on March 4, 1996; and

 WHEREAS defendants' response to this motion was due prior to March 22, 1996; and

 WHEREAS on March 15, 1996, the parties filed a stipulation for an extension of defendants' time to respond to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and

 WHEREAS on March 19, 1996, this Court denied with prejudice the parties' stipulation for an extension of time because the stipulation violated this Court's Individual Rule 2(a), Memorandum Endorsement, Trerotola v. Local 72 of the Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 96 Cv. 0555 (Mar. 19, 1996); and

 WHEREAS on March 22, 1996, defendants filed their response to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and

 WHEREAS on March 22, 1996, defendants also filed a motion for partial summary judgment with supporting documents and memorandum of law; and

 WHEREAS defendants bring the instant motion pursuant to rule 2(b) or, in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2), because defendants' response to plaintiff's underlying motion for summary judgment was not timely filed; and

 WHEREAS under Rule 2(b), "all applications are due two days before the deadline for which the extension is sought," and

 WHEREAS defendants filed the instant motion on March 22, 1996, the day of the deadline for which the extension was sought; and

 WHEREAS defendants' Rule 2(b) motion is untimely; and

 WHEREAS defendants' Rule 2(b) motion should be denied; and

 WHEREAS under Rule 6(b)(2), a court may grant an extension of time "upon [a] motion made after the expiration of the specified period" if "the failure to act ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.