Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Court Order Denying Righthaven's Opposed Motion For Enlargement of Time To File A Response To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss

    Uploaded by

    www.righthavenlawsuits.com
    107 views2 pages
    Court Order Denying Righthaven’s Opposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in Righthaven LLC v. Brian D. Hill, Case No. 11-cv-00211 (D. Colo. April 7, 2011)

    Original Title

    Court Order Denying Righthaven’s Opposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Court Order Denying Righthaven’s Opposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in Righthaven LLC v. Brian D. Hill, Case No. 11-cv-00211 (D. Colo. April 7, 2011)

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    107 views2 pages

    Court Order Denying Righthaven's Opposed Motion For Enlargement of Time To File A Response To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss

    Uploaded by

    www.righthavenlawsuits.com
    Court Order Denying Righthaven’s Opposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in Righthaven LLC v. Brian D. Hill, Case No. 11-cv-00211 (D. Colo. April 7, 2011)

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    Case 1:11-cv-00211-JLK Document 16 Filed 04/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
    Judge John L. Kane

    Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-00211-JLK

    RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company

    Plaintiff,

    v.

    BRIAN D. HILL, an individual,

    Defendant.

    ORDER

    This matter is currently before me on Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Enlargement of

    Time to File a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 14). Citing the diligent and

    good faith efforts it has made over the past month and a half to resolve this matter via settlement

    and its anticipated resolution of this matter in the near future, Plaintiff seeks a three week

    extension of time to file its response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

    It is an unusual circumstance when a party engaged in a settlement negotiation opposes a

    motion for an extension of time. Despite Plaintiff’s veiled invitation to do so, I do not question

    whether Defendant is acting in good faith to settle this case. In light of Defendant’s response to

    the instant motion, I am more inclined to question whether the parties are engaged in any

    meaningful settlement negotiations at all. Notwithstanding these issues, however, whether or not

    this case settles is not my primary concern. Although Plaintiff’s business model relies in large

    part upon reaching settlement agreements with a minimal investment of time and effort, the

    purpose of the courts is to provide a forum for the orderly, just, and timely resolution of
    Case 1:11-cv-00211-JLK Document 16 Filed 04/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

    controversies and disputes. Plaintiff’s wishes to the contrary, the courts are not merely tools for

    encouraging and exacting settlements from Defendants cowed by the potential costs of litigation

    and liability.

    Plaintiff has failed to justify its sought after three week extension to respond to the

    arguments raised in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. It has been aware of Defendant’s motion

    for over two weeks. Plaintiff’s decision to focus its efforts and resources on reaching a

    settlement does not justify an extended delay in these proceedings should those efforts prove

    fruitless. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. It shall files its response to Defendant’s

    Motion to Dismiss no later than April 11, 2011. Defendant shall file its reply brief no later than

    April 25, 2011, at which point these proceedings will be stayed pending my resolution of

    Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

    Dated: April 7, 2011 BY THE COURT:

    /s/ John L. Kane


    Senior U.S. District Judge

    You might also like