Johnson et al v. Champion

Filing 117

ORDER denying 113 Motion for this Court to Determine if the Parties to this Litigation excluding Officer Randal Champion, violated the below listed U.S.C. Codes and the Codes of Alabama. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 10/23/2013. Copy mailed to Plaintiffs. (tgw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
REGINALD JOHNSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RANDALL CHAMPIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION 12-0334-WS-M
)
)
)
)
ORDER

The plaintiffs have filed a document styled, “Leave for this Court to
Determine if the Parties to this Litigation excluding Officer Randal Champion,
violated the below listed U.S.C. Codes and the Codes of Alabama,” (Doc. 113),
which the Court construes as a motion for partial summary judgment under Rule
56.
The Rule 16(b) scheduling order established a deadline for filing
dispositive motions of October 18, 2013. (Doc. 39 at 5). The instant motion was
filed on October 21, 2013 and therefore after the deadline for such motions had
passed.
“A schedule [established under Rule 16(b)] may be modified only for good
cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “This good cause
standard precludes modification unless the schedule could not ‘be met despite the
diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133
F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998). Here, the plaintiffs have neither sought an
extension of time nor demonstrated the existence of good cause for their tardiness.
Since the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment before the
October 18 deadline, (Doc. 97), it is clear that they could also have filed the
instant motion by that deadline had they exercised appropriate diligence.

For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiff’s motion is denied.
DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of October, 2013.
s/WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2