Super Pawn Jewelry & Loan v. Brewer, et al.

Filing 101

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 10/10/2012: For the reasons stated below, the notice of motion and status hearing date of 10/11/2012 is stricken. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion for extension of time #100 and directs the parties as follows: Plaintiff will respond toall pending motions to dismiss no later than 10/16/2012; there will no extensions of that date absent extraordinary and unforseen circumstances; replies in support of the motions to dismiss will be due no later than 11/6/2012. In view of this schedule, Plaintiff's earlier motions for extension to time and/or to continue [74, 94] are stricken as moot. The motion of Defendants Quicksilver and Sinderman for extension of time to obtain counsel #92 is granted; Defendants Quicksilver and Sinderman are given until 10/16/2012 to obtain counsel and until 11/6/2012 to answer or otherwise plead. Defendant TD Ameritrade's motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffsamended complaint and to serve initial disclosures #97 is granted. Defendant Weaver & Martin's request for sanctions #89 is denied. 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

11 C 8894

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

10/10/2012

Super Pawn Jewelry & Loan vs. Brewer et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, the notice of motion and status hearing date of 10/11/2012 is stricken. The Court
grants Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time [100] and directs the parties as follows: Plaintiff will respond to
all pending motions to dismiss no later than 10/16/2012; there will no extensions of that date absent extraordinary
and unforseen circumstances; replies in support of the motions to dismiss will be due no later than 11/6/2012.
In view of this schedule, Plaintiff’s earlier motions for extension to time and/or to continue [74, 94] are stricken
as moot. The motion of Defendants Quicksilver and Sinderman for extension of time to obtain counsel [92] is
granted; Defendants Quicksilver and Sinderman are given until 10/16/2012 to obtain counsel and until 11/6/2012
to answer or otherwise plead. Defendant TD Ameritrade’s motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s
amended complaint and to serve initial disclosures [97] is granted. Defendant Weaver & Martin’s request for
sanctions [89] is denied.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
The docket in this case has been abuzz with activity. Early on in the matter, controversy ensued over Plaintiff’s
lead counsel, Mr. Ouriel [see 44], which led him to file a motion to withdraw [81]. This motion remains under
advisement with Magistrate Judge Schenkier. There are several pending motions to dismiss in this case [51, 57,
58, 59]. Briefing schedules were set on those motions [56, 68], but Plaintiff failed to file its response briefs in
a timely fashion.
Instead, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time [74]. Plaintiff also later filed and noticed a motion for
continuance before Judge Schenkier [86, 87], which Judge Schenkier struck without prejudice and directed
Plaintiff to re-notice before this Court. [See 91]. Plaintiff complied with this order. [94, 95]. Defendants
Quicksilver Stock Transfer LLC and Alan Shinderman (identified as “Sinderman” in the caption and throughout
the docket but self-identified as “Shinderman” in his sole filing [92]) also have moved for an extension of time
to retain counsel and respond to Plaintiff’s amended complaint [92], but failed to notice their motion for a date
certain as required by the local rules. In view of all of these scheduling irregularities, the Court set this matter for
a status hearing on 10/11/2012. [93]. Subsequently, counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for several (but not all) of
the Defendants who have appeared entered into a stipulation with a proposed schedule for the motions to dismiss
involving those parties. [99]. They propose a briefing schedule pursuant to which Plaintiff’s responses to the
motions to dismiss would be due on 10/8/2012 and Defendants’ replies would be due on 10/29/2012. As
suggested by Defendant Weaver & Martin’s response [89] to Plaintiff’s now-stricken but renewed motion to
continue [86, 87], and Plaintiff’s most recent motion for extension of time [100], Plaintiff and Defendant Weaver
11C8894 Super Pawn Jewelry & Loan vs. Brewer et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
& Martin have not come to an accommodation on a briefing schedule for Weaver & Martin’s motion to dismiss.
In light of the filings now on the docket, the Court can accomplish its objective of bringing order to the current
situation without the need for the parties to appear for a status hearing. In short, the Court agrees with Judge
Schenkier’s assessment that to date Plaintiff’s counsel are largely responsible for the “confusion and sloppiness”
reflected in the missed deadlines noted above, but concludes that denying Plaintiff’s request and thus validating
Defendant’s “opportunistic attempt to reap advantage,” is not warranted at this time. [See 91]. If Plaintiff is
unable to get its act together, it may face sanctions up to and including dismissal for want of prosecution.
However, at this relatively early stage of the case, denying Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to a motion to
dismiss would be too severe a sanction. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file a response to
Defendant Weaver & Martin’s motion to dismiss [100] is granted and Weaver & Martin’s request for sanctions
in the amount of the costs of preparing its response [89] is denied.
The Court directs the parties as follows: Plaintiff will respond to all pending motions to dismiss no later than
10/16/2012; there will no extensions of that date absent extraordinary and unforseen circumstances; replies in
support of the motions to dismiss will be due no later than 11/6/2012. In view of this schedule, Plaintiff’s earlier
motions for extension to time and/or to continue [74, 94] are stricken as moot. The motion of Defendants
Quicksilver and Shinderman for extension of time to obtain counsel [92] is granted; Defendants Quicksilver and
Shinderman are given until 10/16/2012 to obtain counsel and until 11/6/2012 to answer or otherwise plead.
Defendant TD Ameritrade’s motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s amended complaint and to
serve initial disclosures [97] is granted. Defendant Weaver & Martin’s request for sanctions [89] is denied. Status
hearing and notice of motion date of 10/11/2012 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date.

11C8894 Super Pawn Jewelry & Loan vs. Brewer et al.

Page 2 of 2