Stock Yards Bank & Trust Company v. Barley

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Magistrate Judge Colin H. Lindsay on 12/28/2016 denying as moot 5 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Barley's answer is due on or before 1/30/2017. cc: Counsel (JBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
STOCK YARD BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,
v.

Plaintiff
Case No. 3:16-cv-713-JHM-CHL

ROBERT BARLEY

Defendant
Memorandum Opinion and Order

On November 21, 2016, Robert Barley moved for an additional fourteen days to answer
the complaint. DN 5. Stock Yards Bank and Trust Company (“Stock Yards”) filed a response
indicating that it did not object, but noted that “Stock Yards did not want to agree to additional
time that Mr. Barley could use to seek to dissolve the existing status quo order before he
responded to the averments of the Complaint.” DN 6.
On December 5, 2016, Barley moved for an additional two months to file an answer. DN
7. Stock Yards opposed the second request. DN 8. Barley replied. DN 10.
Rule 6(b)(1) says:
(b) Extending Time.
(1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time,
the court may, for good cause, extend the time:
(a) with or without motion if the court acts, or if a request is made,
before the original time or its extension expires; or
(b) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to
act because of excusable neglect.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6.
Barley argues that he has shown good cause for the extension because the parties have
agreed to medicate their claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on
January 17, 2017. DNs 7 & 10. Barley says that the EEOC claims and the claims in this action

1

will be part of the mediation, and if the mediation is successful, no responsive pleading will be
needed. DNs 7 & 10.
Stock Yards argues that Barley has not shown good cause for the extension because this
is the first notice Stock Yards has had that Barley intends to mediate the claims in this action at
the EEOC mediation. DN 8 at 3. Stock Yards argues that “The EEOC mediation does not have
any direct effect on this action and the enforcement of Stock Yards’ rights. There is no benefit to
more delay on Mr. Barley’s obligation of response.” Id. at 4.
Stock Yards goes on to argue that an extension until January 30, 2017 will prejudice its
interests. Id. It filed the complaint in October, and the Court granted a Temporary Restraining
Order. Id. With Barley’s removal and two requests for extensions, he has still not responded to
the allegations in the complaint. Id. at 4 – 5. With this delay, Stock Yards has been unable to
address whether its relationships with customers have been damaged. Id. at 5.
Barley replies that an extension will not prejudice Stock Yards. Although he mentions
Stock Yards’s concern that he may move to dissolve the temporary restraining order before filing
an answer, he says he “has made his intentions clear – his goal is to mediate all claims at this
time and will assess his next steps if the mediation is unsuccessful.” DN 10 at 2.
The Court finds that Barley has shown good cause for the requested extension. Even if
the EEOC mediation does not resolve the claims in this action, the process of mediation still has
value. The Court also finds that the requested extension will not prejudice Stock Yards, which
has filed a motion to remand. See DN 9. If the mediation is unsuccessful at resolving the claims
in this action, Barley’s answer will be due on or before January 30, 2017.

2

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the second motion for extension of time (DN 7).
Barley’s answer is due on or before January 30, 2017. The Court DENIES the first motion for
extension of time (DN 5) as moot.

cc: Counsel of record
1.7
December 28, 2016

Colin Lindsay, MagistrateJudge
United States District Court

3