Knowles v. Jura
Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Jura, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-07092
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Carlton Knowles v. Jura, Inc., Judge Stein ruled that the parties’ agreement did not change Jura’s October 24, 2025 response deadline.
The ruling affected Jura, Inc.’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to Carlton Knowles’s complaint, and the parties’ joint stipulation seeking to extend that deadline.
What happened
Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and similarly situated people, and Jura, Inc. submitted a joint stipulation saying Jura’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint should move from October 24 to November 24, 2025.
The court said the agreement did not request court approval. Because a defendant generally has 21 days after service to answer and a stipulated extension requires court approval, Jura’s deadline remained October 24, 2025.
Judge Gary Stein ordered that the joint stipulation did not modify Jura’s response deadline. The order addressed only the timing of Jura’s response and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Knowles v. Jura · No. 1:25-cv-07092
- Paul Engelmayer
- Oct. 23, 2025
Background
The parties filed a joint stipulation stating that Jura, Inc.’s time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, then due October 24, 2025, would be extended by agreement to November 24, 2025.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that, after a complaint is served, a defendant generally has 21 days to file an answer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(i). The court also explained that stipulated extensions of deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not allowed without court approval. The parties’ stipulation did not ask the court to approve an extension; it only stated that they had agreed to one.
Ruling
The court ruled that the joint stipulation did not modify Jura, Inc.’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Without a court-approved request for an extension consistent with the court’s individual rules, the deadline remained October 24, 2025. The order did not address the merits of the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.