Shale Consultants LLC v. Wilson, III et al

Filing 49

ORDER and REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (Rec. Doc. 46) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice (Rec. Doc. 43) is GRANTED, as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 11/6/2014. (cbs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHALE CONSULTING, LLC

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 13-5728

GEORGE WILSON AND,
FRAC CONSULTING, LLC

SECTION "N" (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Presently before the Court is "Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 60 Relief Including Leave
to Amend Order Signed September 17, 2014 (Doc. 42) and Extend Time to Amend Petition" (Rec.
Doc. 46) and Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss" (Rec. Doc. 43). Having carefully considered the
parties' opposing submissions, the Court rules on the motions as stated herein.
Plaintiff's motion essentially asks the Court to re-open the amendment period of
twenty days, which concluded on October 7, 2014, that was established in the Court's September 17th
Order and Reasons. The Court declines to do so for a number of related reasons. First, the
amendment requirement and deadline was clearly set forth in the opening paragraph of the Court's
September 17th Order and Reasons. Thus, it should not have come as a surprise or been easily
overlooked. Indeed, Plaintiff's counsel does not indicate that he was unaware of the Court's order
and deadline, made a mistake in calendaring it, or even simply forgot about it.
Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to seek any relief relative to the October 7th deadline
until filing the instant motion on October 30, 2014, i.e., 41 days after the September 17th Order and

Reasons, and 23 days after the October 7th deadline. This is true notwithstanding that the trial
referenced in Plaintiff's motion did not commence until October 1st and concluded on October 3rd,
and the necessity of the crop harvest started immediately thereafter presumably was not unexpected.
Significantly, had Plaintiff's counsel contacted the Court and/or opposing counsel, prior to October
10th, to request additional time for amendment, Defendants could have avoided the expense
associated with preparing the motion to dismiss (based on the absence of amendment) filed by them
on that date.
Finally, although the Court certainly is not insensitive to the power loss and other
consequences of the October 13th tornado, Plaintiff's counsel presumably could have called the Court
and/or opposing counsel during that week, or immediately following, regarding the situation, but
did not. Nor did Plaintiff's counsel file an opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss on October
21, 2014, in accordance with Local Rule 7.5, given the October 29th motion submission date.
Given the foregoing, and the need for finality and compliance with the Court's
deadlines, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (Rec. Doc. 46) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice (Rec. Doc. 43) is GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of November 2014.

_________________________________
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
United States District Judge

2