Brown v. Sports Clips

Filing 60

ORDER AND REASONS that the 10/17/2011 trial date & the 10/11/2011 PTC date are CONTINUED. FURTHER ORDERED that 46 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jabez Sport Clips, LA, LLC is DENIED W/O PREJ to Dft's right to re-urge a properly supported motion in accordance with the new trial date & related deadlines if, upon further review of Pla's submissions, it believes such a motion is warranted. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 10/4/2011.(caa, ) (NEF: MAG-1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RITA BROWN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 10-852

JABEZ SPORTS CLIPS LA, LLC

SECTION "N" (1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Rec. Doc.
46). On August 16, 2011, Defendant was required to seek leave to file this motion because, pursuant
to the Court's local rules, the proposed motion would not be taken under submission until a date after
the August 18, 2011 deadline set forth in the Court's December 10, 2010 scheduling order. See Rec.
Docs. 18 and 29. Following consideration of the parties' various supporting and opposing
memoranda (Rec. Docs. 29-31, 34-36, and 39), the Court granted Defendant's motion seeking leave
to file the belated motion. See Rec. Doc. 45. Thereafter, following Defendant's submission of a
reply memorandum in support of its summary judgment motion, a dispute ensued as to whether
Plaintiff should be allowed to supplement her opposition with her own and Kim Crispino's
declarations. See Rec. Docs. 49, 51, and 55. By separate order also entered on this date, the Court
has granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to file (Rec. Doc. 49).
Having considered all of the parties' submissions, including Defendant's assertion
that, if Plaintiff were allowed to file her own and Ms. Crispino's declarations, Defendant might seek
leave to strike the declarations, or to file a sur-reply (Rec. Doc. 51), it is not evident to the Court
that all information pertinent to proper resolution of Defendant's motion necessarily has been
submitted to date, or that the matter is ready to proceed to trial as scheduled on October 17, 2011.
Additionally, the Court's trial calendar reflects a scheduling conflict with the current trial date.

Accordingly, on the showing made, IT IS ORDERED that the October 17, 2011 trial date and the
October 11, 2011 pre-trial conference date are CONTINUED until dates to be determined as part
of a scheduling conference to be held with the Court's case manager/courtroom deputy. Counsel
shall be informed of the date and time of that conference as soon as it is scheduled.
Given the foregoing, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion for
summary judgment (Rec. Doc. 46) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendant's right to
re-urge a properly supported motion in accordance with the new trial date and related deadlines if,
upon further review of Plaintiff's submissions, it believes such a motion is warranted. The parties
are additionally reminded that credibility questions typically should be determined by the trier-offact, and that even arguably "self-serving" affidavits may be sufficient to create a fact issue for trial
if they are not wholly conclusory and are based on personal knowledge. See, e.g., R. Pittman Const.
Co., Inc. v. National Fire Ins. Co., No.10-20950, 2011 WL 4509554, *3 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpub.);
Rushing v. Kan. City S. Ry., 185 F.3d 496, 513 (5th Cir.1999), superseded by Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)
on other grounds as recognized in Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 302 F.3d 448, 459 n.16 (5th Cir. 2002).
And, finally, that the Court is not obligated to search the record for evidence supporting either

2

party's position relative to a summary judgment motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3)("court need
consider only the cited materials").1
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of October 2011.

__________________________________
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Clerk to Copy:
Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan

1

Counsel and the parties are additionally reminded of the Court's requirements relative
to line spacing and font size. See Local Rule 10.1 of the Local Civil Rules of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (effective February 1, 2011).
3