Bartels v. Southern Motors of Savannah, Inc.

Filing 51

ORDER denying 42 Motion to Strike; granting 44 Motion for Leave to File; denying as moot 49 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiff is directed to file a response to the motion for summary judgment within twenty-one (21) days of this Order. Defendant's reply brief shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of Plaintiff's response. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 07/07/2015. (thb)

IN

TIIE UNTTED STATES DISIR,ICT COI'RT !'OR THE
SOUTIIERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

DUANE BARTELS,
Plaintiff,

cv 414-415

V.

M
S O U T H E R N O T O R SO F S A V A N N A H , I N C .
M
d/b/a
S O U T H E R N O T O R SA C U R A ,
Defendant

ORDER

proqcnfl\/
M^l :nn

F.r.
to

deadline
rt a

time
iS

mnr inn
or

strike

civil

file

rrrrimal,,
t A^.

grant
reasons

For

the

act

may or

-'n

/ nI

rF.flrcq-s

frafcndan-

(Doc.

its

itS

howeVer,

20L5;

the

2015.t

Corr-r

to

leave

In
fhe

derv

fi.Le

response
to

molion
out

an

Motion

Pfaintiff's

herein,

stated

filed

DefendanL

23,

for

request

Defendant/s

Strike

15,

June

-hp

fh^f

to

42.)

April

on

expired

motions

a.Lternatively

motion.

:c

, - r '' ^ ^ r a h l -

S n m m ^r v

Motion

Plaintiff's

is

trr^^ma-i

f,-\r S.-mmerv

\ . 4 ,-^ i . \ n

, ^

l-refore Court

to

of

Strike

DENIED.
"idhen
fnr

has
FrD.

an

rrond .^rrse-

exoi red
R.

Crv,

federal

if
P.

discrict

the
6(b)

must

the

extend

(1)(B)
ro

.

time
Lo

With

.

wichrn

done

'A: -Fd

narrv

court

be

,

act

.

on

motion
of

because
rufe.

Lhis
an

overlook

specified

a

"a

unrimely

the

time,
after

made

the

act

may
by

time

neglecl."

excusab]e

party

courr

convj nce

a

demonsLraclng

t

schedufing order, entered on June 6, 2a74, the partles
Pursuant to the first
(Doc. 15.)
the close of discovery to fiLe alf civiL motrons.
had 30 days following
on Septe'rber
r :v , , oe x L e n s ' o n s o I L h e s e d e a d - i n e s , t L e f ' r s L
lne parEies ware gra.Eeo
(Docs. 22 & 25.)
Under the twrce22, 2AIA, and the second on January 12, 2015>rAa.r6.

with

<-1a4

civil

r'tr.r"r

...t.^.

.-r'e^^,76-\,

motions to be fiLed

wa<

fir:

tw

30 days tbereafter'

se'

Lo

conclude

on

March

23,

2OI5,

/M

\-riLi

n

Demint v.

negIect."

excusable
Et:
!

).|.|t\

del- ar-1r ri

In

n.1

rL -r l L g a l l 9.l - v. !l P ln ^ua r l Y P g n9 F|
-' u
: u] v|
I
!
| f
Aal:rr

ire

i-^

v.

Burts

2AL5)

(11th cir.

955 n.6

2010))

be

Lakj nq

omiss.ion. "
380,

U,S.
flexibfe
Co.

No.

she

-l.re

tt

m^t-i^^e

rr

plrinl-

iff'<

\/

/?\

I pn.'f

rha

nrnr-aor]

innc

h

1?\

L^l

t^m

2011

Lhe

parcies'

P'Ship,

negfecr

v.

Meier

neglect

tu-u:vh v
t l

Ltd,

Assocs.

"excusable

notion."

of

aYa r r i
! ur

surrounding

Brunswick

Apptx 952,

312 F.

"whaL sorts

of

circumsLances

fhe

ro

11

qc/-rcf

-el,ai

:r,elrz

rew

f ho

ei-:

50?
is

Deutsche

!,lL 1806509'

1

f nrrr

a

Bank Trust
at

+2

(M.D

its

Fal4r

failure

her

in

che

.l-:.^F

practice,

normaf

dead-Iines

Lo meet

and through

save)

deadline

Lhe

she

Cafendar,'

hel i,.-/Fd

deadLines,

the

thal

She

lnadveltence,

for

disposiLive

I

G--OVer

:i

is

nra

(or

enter

for

counsel / s

staF'iro

these

Lo enter

F-i

ra.l

j--

Ar\/

:t-

ex.use

defense

"Per

properly

na.rl

f.l-owiro

her

a

lr'^.

, c

'(:-)

facLors:

Pensacola,

:r-

2:09-cv-159-FcM-29SPC/

attempced

Ann l \/ i n.t
-tefcnd:rf

i a

Importantly,

dead]-ine:

-c..rr-F<tp.l

fai]ed

Under

2015 WL 3411022, at *2 (M.D.

of

City

Co, v.

Servs,

nrF<enrq

motions

persona.Ily

eXCUSabf e

20IL)

npfaF.l^nt

hnvrouar

r]:rl-

The determination

somewhat forglving

and

rrqr > | lrr

v.

relevant

Inv.

iS

irrriicirl

5:72-cv-209,

Glover

(1993).

395

Americas.

I

aIl

Pioneer

F.Ia. May II,

civj

of

account

n.r

an

'excusable'

considered

following

^nn^ci

64L-42

whether it was within
the
lncluding
(4) whether the movanL
movanL, and

No

(quoting

Ga. June 2,

will

Ga.,

Cnty.,

tr..-

the

imnacl-

the reason for the delay,
of the
reasonab.le control
acted in gtood falth. /
Carrer

tha

i:l

639,

nmirfFdI

na^

conside].

-a

uvLLrrLrq!

\r'q

narf

courts

n^fa^r

!Lr

o,

i

{",hcr hanroirruii

r n r' lu

y

-FZ.I :ll-pr^1-i^n

\4uuLoLlulr-

5 (b),

Fede-ral RuIe
af

r^6^

iihr.----

208 F,R.D.

Nat i onsBanL!9r-p_:,

.faCLO1. S

ie

the

under

excusab_le

llr-l ir-o

above/

/11

rhe

\.rrnrtrro
u.rsJL

Aa
u u -l a r a t t ' t

Court

concludes

circumsrances.
nF

rho

t:

that
FirsL,

+.t __ts: ^| 9o L rtrrr

---r
orrrl

-^n+i^,,-r

\.1

(Doc.

lawsuit.
yr

n r nvn e r^ d
Lo v

l -. '

summer"

(jd.

^-

-ha

the

of

United
in

delay

.
* 't -

in

Wis.,

of

of

days

brief

tj led

or

reason

to

i ,u d ^ J L "hsf , r L
,
ha
I u(

*1

at

(S.D.

de-Lay has not

"had

rrnrr'lA

h:rra

WL 3477O22,

hanaf

:r-jel

in

^
a

at

d - r ,v. s ll v l^rn i
^ , r

rrr

uL

allowlng
n A d ^ 1 - irrrr o v u
"Eyq

*2.
nrr

courL

t.haL

indicaLion
desire

to

all,

who

not

not

constitute

and troubLed

Blue

v.

v.

(addressing

1999)

Servs',

Smukler

Fla.

Nov.
afrer

to

nn

its

irrdi-i:l

ny..aFi,l

the

Court

nn.lF-sfa..l

ino

nf

-ha

for

in.tq

.

court

there

motion

a

explred)

d.isLricL

Therefore,

ftle

L2-

(addressing

impacc on the

1202.

at

No.

dead I j ne

the

a

(addressing

lnc..

2013)

20,

by

& Blue

Cross

2015 WL 3411022, ac *1

Moreover.
^r

aware of

1202 (II:uhLCir.

Defendant
\\imnrnl

is

WaIter

an adverse

18L f'.3d

Walter.
thaL

believe

to

LhiS

asking

his

a.Lone does

desire

minuLes

90

2015

of

KIuge

Iate);

approximaLe Ly

resources."

its

court

fOr

any parLicularized

Cf.

1198,

181 F.3d

2013 WL 6L69214,

rhis

case.

this

62106,

However,

trial

And while

Lhe

prepared

and shared by mosc, if

the

o n e m o n t - h ); C a r t e r ,

four

filed

Ser

for

)

defay

filing

a brief

3.
-

basis

he is

conLacL the

triaI.

generalized

the

Lo Lhe second facLor,

lenqth

Shiefd

understandable

wOUld

COUrt

'^r

rhe

rhar

scares

provide

or

form

that

however.

not,

tr.iaI

ihF

r.n

Court.

/ T :i 1
\ .

Turnlng
the

He did

is

action

'

-h.af

L.a f n^1. :

reso-Lve chis

^6

6) .

daa tmo:vn a sr
q r t
s

He addiLionally

sr--\n F^l
,/vf,rvvr

seL down for

come before

u

1.)

:nd

ar

qtFns

- r^:,.^i

f l-a

42 at

l-ri:r

case be

his

^+

i^-

is

no

summary
/-:-l-or

"

summary judgment

flnds
lan:-

i<<rree

and

facLS

a case.
As

defense
However.

Lo rhe
counsel's
the

chird

faccor,

control,

Eleventh

Lhe reason

a facL

Circuit

has

for

delay

was cerLainJy

whjch

she does noc

twice

held

that

appear

"the

to

failure

wichin
conLest.
to

record

Lhe

Wafter,

appficable

181 F.3d

aharal/

aL

an.h.1r

r:l ac^

\r

(finding

that

because

there

focal

rhe

was "no

indicacion

or

*2

t f inrl.no

<imnlo

-^lan.l:ri

Fin:lI-,

" flout

wd5

arry

Lhe

^i ^a l-,ar'^n.l .

precedenL

hoLdi'rg

\\innar-cnl-

/r\/Frs

fe^Fe

no

and

respect

to

the

correct

thaL

rta:.{' i .la<
Defendant

a-^

rrnd -a

-lal :.r

future

the

that

/11-h

oc.)

rhe

delay

rr

'l qoA\

(-; r

Lo negligence
disregarded"

triaL

or

thaL

he

2015 WL 3411422,

CarLer.

'\,,1a'arr

.is

to

ah.l

filin.r

w^S

due

LO

a

dispositive

Lhe Court's
ir nnqar!

presenled
(1)

appropriate

a

42

at

jn

cielay

to
6. )

t i I i ng

:11e.n:li6ns

not

to
ahe

^.'.-

to

be

Lhe judicjal
i ^nS

flle

def ense

a motion

as

Ci rcui t

rhis
On

ini

wh.ile

ignored

Courc

of

taiLh,

crLa^lrrl

And

deadline.

f r-

indication

such

bad

.l-c

two

(2 ) EIevenLh

dates
of

e.1en4

are

de-Lay of

no parLicularized

ca-Lendarinq

motions

is

Defendant

lengthy

caSe forward,.

n:.rca

course

with

n^

I r.a^ .^,,r-

Plaintiff

(Doc,

Defendanr's

Lhar

to make a mockery of

F.\ia..) c^

permiL

orders . "

in

Orders

faith.

m.istake.

other

1?)

bad

would

Court' s

move the

an^.i

of

filing

no evidence

errors

f :n^c

intended

one monch);

deliberately

indication

this

Court

.resire

i .lL.lq,.

.^,r-l

I hF

to

il-.a

unLimely

the

on one hand and on the

months

q/o

see also

I.rharc

- 'r- o n a n i n n o c e n t
L l

On balance,

^-a;,

finds

presenLS

ILU!<

Lrrrlrg

,)/l

tr

filing

arrnr"\

allowing

P]aintiff

F-j-

of

counsel

late."),'

-F^l

Loca.L Rules

the

However,

fiLing

1-h6 .^urt

LhaL

contends

by

in

was attribuLable

deadline
rhar

oversight

delay

Cheney int.ended

"that

Fv.t.qehla

nn

a

?1

fil-ing

"i nnocent

an

^^--

a

rules

but

(addressing

12A2

nissing

soughL an advantage
^f

is

dead.Line"

these

r{j1}')

6a6lsa

Plaintiff

is

and

does

scheduLing

noL

lind

proceedi ngs or
CounSeL

for

are

feave

that
cause

that

.in

to

file

the

an

, r rr 1L- ti rm! + l l \ /
r F
ur

far

rnl-i

'r

^n

f r,ra:

l-l^^r.

Based on
DENIED

and

the

'Fqn.nse

1-11 fhF

(21)

DAYS of

F O I T R T E E N( 1 4 )
schedufe,
49)

is

44)

order.

nr-

for

sU"r'na-V

for

rh:r

in

to

/.]rn

reply

response.
Extension

of

to

br-ief
In

l-\Ff Le1

(doc.

Untimely
is

r.,'ilFin

shall
light
File

42)

Motion

DIRECTED to

401

Time to

LO

Augusta,

Geocgia.

this

74

is
for

fife

a

TWENTY-ONE

be

filed

of

this

within
amended

Response (doc.

DENIED AS MOOT.

O R D E RE l f l r E R E Da t

aSk

nr^.f:Ce.

Strike

Fife

PLaintiff

iI]do'rer-f

:c

"if

fadar^-

Motion

Leave

DeTendant's

Motion

nl,.a

GF,NiIEED.

Plalntiff's

DAYS of

Plaintiff's

is

fo-

m.lri.n

:da,re

Plaintiff's

Motion

(doc,

nl'l

hAq

foregolng,

rhis

tl^F

-6-.ri<c:-n,,

Defendant's

S u r T r m a r yJ u d g m e n t
!EJTJVI:JU

T-daF.i

rqr

o^o or July, 2015.

ATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA