Legal Opinion

Georgopolous v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided November 29, 1995No. 95 Civ. 5145 (DNE)PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EDELSTEIN, District Judge:

WHEREAS pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2) (“Rule 6(b)(2)”), defendant, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, moves this Court to extend defendant’s time to file an answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint; and

WHEREAS defendant brings the instant motion pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2) because defendant failed to request an extension of time to file an answer until after defendant’s time to answer had expired; 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…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Fred Traguth and Otto Handtke, Individually and Doing Business as Dance Motion Press v. D'LeLa ZuckCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
  3. Panis v. Mission Hills Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
  4. Frank J. Ruiz v. Elmer O. CadyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981
  5. Kleckner v. Glover Trucking Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1984

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Blandford v. Broome County GovernmentDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2000
  2. Trerotola v. Local 72 of the International Brotherhood of TeamstersDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
  3. Trisura Insurance Company v. Bighorn Construction and Reclamation, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API