Smith v. Edge, et al.

Filing 58

ORDER denying 57 Motion to extend the dispositive-motion deadline, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/26/15. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION CONNIE SMITH, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. ROBERT EDGE, II, and PFG TRANSCO, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14cv909-MHT (WO) ORDER It is ORDERED that the motion to extend the dispositive-motions deadline (doc. no. 57) is denied. * * * This court has made clear that, “A request or motion for extension of a deadline in any court order ... must indicate that movant has, in a timely manner, previously contacted counsel for all other parties; and ..., based on that contact, must state whether counsel for all other parties agree to or oppose the extension request or motion,” and that, “A request or motion that fails to meet this requirement will be denied outright, unless the movant offers a credible explanation in the request or motion why this requirement has not been met.” Scheduling Order (doc. no. 11), § 15(B). Movant here has failed to comply with this requirement. Moreover, “Absent stated unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the movant, ... ‘eleventh hour’ extension requests and motions will be denied outright.” Id. The movant has failed to offer any explanation as to why this motion was filed more than a month after the deadline for dispositive motions in this case, rather than days, or even weeks, advance. DONE, this the 26th day of October, 2015. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE in

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?