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, )

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