Judge Allyne R. Ross grants extension to file response and reply in civil case
Case Summary
Judge Allyne R. Ross granted an 80-day extension for filing response and reply briefs in a civil case. The plaintiff must serve opposition papers by November 27, 2023, and the defendant must serve a reply by December 6, 2023, after which all motion papers must be electronically filed.
Latest development
ORDER granting 80 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiff's opposition shall be served on or before November 27, 2023. Defendant's reply shall be served on or before December 6, 2023, at which
Order · May 11, 2026
A Motion was filed.
Key Issues
- • Extension of briefing deadlines
- • Civil motion practice
- • Electronic filing deadlines
Docket Snapshot
Court
Court not identified
Awaiting court metadata
Docket
Not captured
Civil
Stage
Court order issued
Active
Filed
Date unavailable
Not in the available feed
Latest Filing
ORDER granting 80 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiff's opposition shall be served on or
Order · May 11, 2026
Coverage
0 articles
0 sources tracked
Participants
1 Presiding Judge
1 linked entity
Judge
Allyne R. Ross
What the record shows
The court metadata has not been resolved yet, so Juryvine is keeping the page conservative until a reliable court match lands.
The newest docket activity we have is a order dated May 11, 2026.
The visible party/entity graph currently includes Allyne R. Ross.
No independent press coverage is attached yet; this page is currently docket-led rather than media-led.
The Story So Far
Judge Allyne R. Ross issued an order on November 21, 2023, granting the plaintiff additional time to file their opposition to a pending motion. The plaintiff must serve their opposition by November 27, 2023.
The defendant’s reply is due by December 6, 2023. Both parties are required to electronically file all motion papers by the December 6 deadline. The court emphasized that any further changes to this briefing schedule require explicit permission.
This order responds to the plaintiff’s motion for an extension, identified as motion number 80, which the court approved. The case remains active, but the underlying motion and its subject matter are not specified in the available docket information.
The court’s control over the schedule signals a desire to keep the case on a firm timeline despite the extension. Judge Ross’s order sets a clear framework for the next phase of briefing, which will shape the court’s consideration of the pending motion.
The absence of details on the motion’s content leaves the stakes and potential outcomes unclear at this stage. The parties must adhere strictly to the new deadlines or seek court approval for any further adjustments. This procedural development marks a routine but important step in the litigation’s progress under Judge Ross’s supervision.
update What Changed This Week
receipt_long Source expand_more
ORDER granting 80 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiff's opposition shall be served on or before November 27, 2023. Defendant's reply shall be served on or before December 6, 2023, at which point all motion papers should be electronically filed. This briefing schedule may be modified further only with permission of the court. Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 11/21/2023. (MK)
Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.
Case Timeline
1 eventORDER granting 80 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiff's opposition shall be served on or before November 27, 2023. Defendant's reply shall be served on or before December 6, 2023, at which point all motion papers should be electronically filed. This briefing schedule may be modified further
A Motion was filed.
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more
Sources tracked
0 outlets · 0 articles
Timeline events
1 record on file
Last updated
6 hours, 24 minutes ago
Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.