Johnson v. ITT Corporation
Filing
30
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 27 MOTION (Second) for Extension of Time to File Response as to 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Tareem Johnson. The Court will rule on the Defendant's pending Motion for Summary Judgment based on the current record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 7/13/11. (cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
TAREEM JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ITT CORPORATION,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 1:10-CV-142
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Second Motion for an Extension of Time
to File a Response to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket # 27.) The Court
previously granted the Plaintiff to and including July 11, 2011, to file a Response. (See Docket #
26.) That deadline passed without a Response being filed and on July 12, 2011, Plaintiff’s
counsel filed the Second Motion, seeking an extension of time because she has been on vacation
and, apparently, learned on July 11 that a witness was unavailable to submit an affidavit. (See
Docket # 27-1.)
On July 13, 2011, and at the request of Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court set the motion for an
in-person hearing at 4 p.m. The Plaintiff’s counsel, however, failed to appear and the hearing
was held in her absence.1 The Defendant objected to the Second Motion, observing that the
Plaintiff has failed to show excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) for
such an extension.
Indeed, having filed the Second Motion for an Extension after the deadline had passed,
1
After scheduling the hearing, the Court was informed by the office of Plaintiff’s counsel that she was in a
state court proceeding and would not be able to appear.
the Plaintiff must establish excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). See
Goodman v. Clark, No. 2:09 CV 355, 2010 WL 2838396, at *2 (N.D. Ind. July 12, 2010). To
determine whether a delay was caused by excusable neglect, courts must consider “all relevant
circumstances surrounding the omission” including the danger of prejudice to the other party; the
length of the delay and its impact on the proceedings; the reasons for the delay, including
whether they were in the “reasonable control of the movant”; and whether the movant acted in
good faith. Raymond v. Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600, 606 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Pioneer Inv.
Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)).
The Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to argue, let alone demonstrate, excusable neglect and,
in fact, her own filings cut against such a finding. After the first extension was granted,
Plaintiff’s counsel went on a vacation and apparently waited until the weekend before the July
11 deadline to prepare any response. (See Docket # 27-1.) Since excusable neglect has not been
shown, and since Plaintiff’s counsel was not present at the hearing to otherwise articulate a basis
for granting the Motion, the Second Motion for an Extension of Time (Docket # 27) is DENIED.
The Court will rule on the Defendant’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment based on the
current record.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for July 13, 2011.
/S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?