Dennis v. K&L Gates LLP
- 1:20-cv-09393
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Dennis v. K&L Gates LLP, the court denied Dennis’s fourth extension request and kept August 4, 2025, as the opposition deadline.
Willie E. Dennis and K&L Gates LLP and the other defendants. Dennis’s deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss remained August 4, 2025, and the defendants’ motion could be treated as unopposed if he missed it.
What happened
In Dennis v. K&L Gates LLP, Willie E. Dennis, who was representing himself, asked for a fourth extension to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss because of ongoing medical difficulties.
The court had already granted extensions, warned that no further extensions would be granted, and ordered Dennis to file his opposition by August 4, 2025. The court also warned that the motion to dismiss could be treated as unopposed if he missed that deadline.
The court denied the new extension request and repeated the August 4 deadline. The court also warned that continued failures to follow court orders and deadlines could lead to sanctions, dismissal, or limits on claims, defenses, arguments, or evidence.
The detailed version
- Dennis v. K&L Gates LLP · No. 1:20-cv-09393
- July 29, 2025
Background
Willie E. Dennis, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a fourth request for more time to oppose K&L Gates LLP and the other defendants’ motion to dismiss. He cited ongoing medical difficulties. The court noted that Dennis is a former attorney and had previously been briefly represented by counsel.
The court had set the briefing schedule on May 1, 2025, and the defendants filed their motion to dismiss on May 14, 2025. The opposition was originally due June 5, 2025. The court granted an earlier extension and set a July 1 deadline. It warned that no additional extension would be granted absent unforeseen and extraordinary circumstances.
The court later denied Dennis’s request for a temporary medical stay of all proceedings and deadlines but granted him “one final extension,” setting August 4, 2025, as the deadline for his opposition. The court expressly warned that no further extensions would be granted and that the motion to dismiss would be treated as unopposed if Dennis did not file by that date. Dennis then sought another extension, which the court denied in a prior order. He filed the present request despite those prior rulings and warnings.
Ruling
The court denied Dennis’s fourth request for an extension. It ordered him to file his opposition to the motion to dismiss on or before August 4, 2025. If he failed to do so, the court would treat the defendants’ motion to dismiss as unopposed.
The court also warned that continued failure to comply with court orders, deadlines, the federal procedural rules, the Southern District of New York’s local rules, the court’s individual rules, or the parties’ discovery and other obligations could result in sanctions. The listed potential consequences included monetary penalties, dismissal, or preclusion of claims, defenses, arguments, or evidence. This order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.