Dennis v. K&L Gates LLP
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-09393
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Dennis v. K&L Gates LLP, Judge Vyskocil denied Dennis’s third request to extend his deadline to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Willie E. Dennis and the defendants, because the order sets the deadline for Dennis’s opposition to the motion to dismiss and warns of possible consequences for missing it.
What happened
In Dennis v. K&L Gates LLP, plaintiff Willie E. Dennis, representing himself, asked for a third extension to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court had already extended his deadline twice.
Dennis requested two more weeks because he could not collect records from the American Arbitration Association. The court had previously warned that the last extension was final and that no further extensions would be granted.
Judge Vyskocil denied the request and required Dennis to file his opposition by August 4, 2025. If he does not meet that deadline, the court will treat defendants’ motion to dismiss as unopposed.
The detailed version
- Dennis v. K&L Gates LLP · No. 1:20-cv-09393
- Vyskocil
- July 9, 2025
Background
Willie E. Dennis, proceeding without a lawyer, asked for a third extension of the deadline to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. On May 1, 2025, the court set the briefing schedule, and defendants filed their motion on May 14, 2025.
The court first extended Dennis’s opposition deadline from June 5 to July 1 because of a medical emergency. Dennis then requested a temporary medical stay of all proceedings and deadlines. The court denied the broader stay request but granted him “one final extension” to file his opposition by August 4, 2025. The court warned that no further extensions would be granted and that failure to comply could result in defendants’ motion being treated as unopposed.
On July 7, 2025, Dennis requested another, “brief two-week” extension because he could not collect records from the American Arbitration Association.
Ruling
The court denied Dennis’s request. It stated that it had already granted multiple extensions, including two extensions of the deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss, and had clearly warned that the prior extension was final. The court explained that consideration for people representing themselves does not excuse failure to follow court deadlines and procedural rules.
The court ordered Dennis to file his opposition by August 4, 2025. If he does not do so, the court will treat defendants’ motion to dismiss as unopposed. The court also warned that continued noncompliance with court orders, deadlines, federal rules, local rules, or other obligations may lead to sanctions, including monetary penalties, dismissal or preclusion of claims or defenses, or exclusion of arguments or evidence.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.