You are on page 1of 3

Case 4:10-cv-01165-DJS Document 10 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

PHIL ROSEMAN, et al., )


)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) No. 4:10CV1165-DJS
)
MARTIN SIGILLITO, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER

Now before the Court is defendant Martin Sigillito’s

motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead [Doc.

#8]. This matter is now ripe for disposition.

Plaintiffs filed this civil action against defendant on

June 30, 2010, alleging racketeering and conspiracy to commit

racketeering under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Defendant was served on

July 1, 2010. On July 22, 2010, the date on which a responsive

pleading was due, defendant made the present motion for additional

time to respond to the complaint. Defendant argues that additional

time is needed because of an on-going federal grand jury

investigation against him, the possibility that the Court lacks

jurisdiction over this case, the possibility that his present

counsel will be disqualified, and the possibility that all Eastern

District of Missouri judges will be recused. Defendant also argues

that a stay may be appropriate because of the pending criminal


Case 4:10-cv-01165-DJS Document 10 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 3

investigation. Plaintiffs oppose defendant’s motion, arguing that

each of defendant’s reasons for an extension are without merit.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the Court has

the power to extend the time to respond to a complaint for good

cause. Defendant’s first argument for an extension is the on-going

criminal investigation into the same matters alleged in the

complaint. Defendant presents no legal authority for this

position, and the Court finds no reason why the civil case cannot

proceed concurrently with the criminal investigation. Defendant’s

second reason for an extension or stay is the possible lack of

jurisdiction. Again, defendant cites no legal authority for this

position, and the Court does not find it to be good cause for an

extension or a stay. If defendant believes the Court lacks

jurisdiction, defendant should file a motion in that regard. Next,

defendant asserts that an extension or stay is appropriate because

his counsel may be disqualified. Once again, defendant cites no

authority in support of this position. The Court does not find

this to be good cause for a lengthy extension or a stay. Finally,

defendant indicates that all Eastern District of Missouri judges

have been recused from handling matters related to the criminal

investigation. Defendant is concerned that a similar order may be

contemplated in this case. This argument does not present a good

cause for delaying plaintiffs’ prosecution of this case.

The Court finds that defendant’s arguments do not present

good cause for an extension of 60 days or for a stay, and his

2
Case 4:10-cv-01165-DJS Document 10 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 3

motion will be denied. The Court will, however, grant defendant

seven days from the date of this order to respond to the complaint.

Given the time the Court has waited for the present motion to ripen

and the seven additional days after this order, defendant

effectively will be afforded an extension of twenty days for a

total response time of forty-one days, which should be more than

sufficient to respond to plaintiffs’ complaint. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Martin Sigillito’s

motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead is

denied as follows.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s deadline for

responding to plaintiff’s complaint shall be August 10, 2010.

Dated this 3rd day of August, 2010.

/s/Donald J. Stohr
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE