Parties in D. Del. cases often stipulate to extend the answer deadline. Typically, a 30-day extension is basically a given. It's rare for a party to deny that initial extension, and I have never heard of the Court denying a stipulated extension like that. It just takes a while for a party to get counsel together and then for those counsel to review the complaint and research the facts.
But, as we note in our page about stipulations, parties sometimes run into trouble when they repeatedly extend the answer deadline to try to settle the case. How many times is too many? Generally it's quite a few, but there have been exceptions. And it seems like the overall delay in the case can contribute to the Court deciding that it's time for the parties go get moving.
That seems to be what happened last week in CRH Medical Corporation v. MDE Medical, LLC, C.A. No. 25-95-WCB (D. Del.). That case was originally filed in January 2025. The parties agreed to extensions of the answer deadline until March, and the defendant then filed a motion to dismiss. The Court resolved that motion in under six months, but the case did not move forward in the interim.
After the Court resolved the motion, the parties stipulated to a one-month extension of the answer date, bringing the deadline to October 2025. Then they filed another one-month extension, then another, and another. Each of the stips listed the bases for the stip—largely, settlement efforts—and the number of previous stips. The latest stipulated extension would have brought the answer date to February 2026, which is more than a year from filing.
Visiting Judge Bryson partially denied this latest extension, giving the parties only two additional weeks, and ordering that if they want a further extension, they are going to have to explain their settlement efforts in detail:
I have granted all the requests for extension to date without requiring any further justification from the parties. But in light of the fact that this case will shortly be a year old without an answer being filed or a scheduling conference being held, I will not grant the month-long extension currently sought. Instead, I will grant an extension of two weeks, until January 30, 2026. If any further extension is requested beyond that date, I will require that the request be accompanied by a detailed account of the efforts that have been made toward settlement and what obstacles remain in the way of informal resolution.
D.I. 47 at 2. Judge Bryson also explained that, if it doesn't look like settlement is right around the corner, he will restart the case:
If I am not satisfied at that time that settlement is imminent, I will deny any further extension of the date for filing the defendants’ answer, and I will set a date for the scheduling conference in the case.
Id. Just something to keep in mind!
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
