Sequel Capital, LLC v. Pearson et al

Filing 227

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 1/19/2012: Before the Court are (1) Defendant Pearsons motion for extension of time 224 to file response to the motion for summary judgment 205 filed by the Graffia Defendants and Thi rd Party Defendants Hartford and Impero and (2) Plaintiffs oral motion for extension of time [see 226] to file response to the motion for summary judgment 198 filed by the Graffia Defendants. For the reasons stated below, Defendant Pearsons motion 224 is respectfully denied; Plaintiffs motion [see 226] is granted. Briefing on the Graffia Defendants motion forsummary judgment against Plaintiff 198 is extended as follows: Plaintiffs response brief is due on 2/7/2012; the Graffia Defendants reply, if any, is due on 2/21/2012. Mailed notice(tbk, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Robert M. Dow, Jr.

CASE NUMBER

07 C 2642

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

1/19/2012

Sequel Capital, LLC vs. Pearson, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Before the Court are (1) Defendant Pearson’s motion for extension of time [224] to file response to the motion
for summary judgment [205] filed by the Graffia Defendants and Third Party Defendants Hartford and Impero
and (2) Plaintiff’s oral motion for extension of time [see 226] to file response to the motion for summary
judgment [198] filed by the Graffia Defendants. For the reasons stated below, Defendant Pearson’s motion [224]
is respectfully denied; Plaintiff’s motion [see 226] is granted. Briefing on the Graffia Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment against Plaintiff [198] is extended as follows: Plaintiff’s response brief is due on 2/7/2012;
the Graffia Defendants’ reply, if any, is due on 2/21/2012.
O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
As the Court previously explained in considerable detail [see 191] – and thus will not repeat here – it does not
take lightly the decision to deny a motion for extension of time. However, there are circumstances in which the
need “to force parties and their attorneys to be diligent in prosecuting their causes of action” (Raymond v.
Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600, 606-07 (7th Cir. 2006)) warrants adherence to deadlines and an unwillingness
to extend them once they are missed. Here, as set forth in the Court’s prior order, Defendant Pearson has been
given every indulgence in the framing and prosecution of his claims, only to repeatedly and flagrantly miss
deadlines and then seek further indulgence weeks later. Regrettably, the instant motion follows that pattern. The
due date for Pearson’s brief, November 18, was set pursuant to agreement of the parties and missed because
departing counsel failed to report the deadline to the lawyers at his firm who were to take over the case and the
firm did not have in place any other docket tracking mechanism that might have picked up the oversight. The
oversight was not detected until almost two months later, when the instant motion was filed. To his credit,
counsel who has now taken over the case for Defendant since the last missed deadline has acknowledged the past
problems and pledged that they will not recur on his watch. But in view of the history of this case and especially
the Court’s July 5 order, the Court cannot countenance the failure to file a response brief to the summary
judgment motion, or to seek an extension of the deadline, in anything remotely resembling a timely fashion and
without a persuasive justification. Accordingly, the motion for extension of time filed by Defendant Pearson is
denied.
The circumstances are different as to Plaintiff. While the better practice would have been to file a motion for
extension of time prior to the deadline, Plaintiff’s reason for needing additional time – lead counsel’s serious
family crises – and prior history – which does not include habitual disregard of deadlines – place Plaintiff in far
more favorable position to request an extension at this late date. In addition, although the deadline has passed,
it did so only a few weeks ago (December 21). Finally, as the discussion on the record indicates, counsel for the

07C2642 Sequel Capital, LLC vs. Pearson, et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
movants would not have opposed the motion had it been filed at the appropriate time. For all of these reasons,
the Court will grant the motion to extend the briefing on the Graffia Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
against Plaintiff [198]. Plaintiff’s response brief is due on 2/7/2012; the Graffia Defendants’ reply, if any, is due
on 2/21/2012.

07C2642 Sequel Capital, LLC vs. Pearson, et al.

Page 2 of 2