King v. GulfMark Americas, Inc
ORDER AND REASONS denying 34 Motion to Continue. For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion is DENIED, except that the deposition and discovery deadline will be extended until May 17, 2017. All other deadlines will remain the same. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 5/4/2017. (cg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GULFMARK AMERICAS, INC.
SECTION “R” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant GulfMark Americas, Inc.’s motion to
continue trial in this matter.1 For the following reasons, the motion is
This is a Jones Act case.
According to plaintiff Kortney King’s
complaint, plaintiff was previously employed by GulfMark as a seaman
aboard the vessel M/V KNOCKOUT.2 Plaintiff alleges that on February 18,
2014, he was carrying groceries on the steps near the second floor of the
vessel when he slipped on melted ice and fell down the steps. 3 The fall caused
injuries to King’s back, head, legs, and hands.
R. Doc. 34.
R. Doc. 1 at 2 ¶ 8.
Id. at 3 ¶ 9.
Plaintiff filed suit on June 8, 2015. In his lawsuit, King alleges that the
fall was caused solely by the negligence of GulfMark, and that the M/V
KNOCKOUT was unseaworthy at the time of his fall. 4 Plaintiff alleges that
that he is entitled to maintenance and cure from GulfMark, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
Defendant now moves to continue trial. The motion is unopposed.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may
be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 16(b)(4). Whether to grant or deny a continuance is within the sound
discretion of the trial court. United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir.
1996). In deciding whether to grant a continuance, the Court’s “judgment
range is exceedingly wide,” for it “must consider not only the facts of the
particular case but also all of the demands on counsel’s time and the court’s.”
Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 736 (5th Cir. 2000)(internal citations
Defendant argues that plaintiff’s medical uncertainty warrants the
continuance, as plaintiff’s treating physician has recommended surgery, but
Id. at 3-4 ¶¶ 10, 11.
surgery has not yet occurred.5 This is the exact reason plaintiff gave the
Court in plaintiff’s previous motion to continue, which was granted in July6
of last year. Defendant’s motion gives no indication why the surgery—which
was recommended at least as far back as July 2016—has not yet occurred,
and there is also no indication if the surgery is even scheduled.7 As such, the
Court finds that defendant has not shown good cause to warrant a second
continuance of this matter.
As to defendant’s argument that a downturn in the oil and gas industry
has made scheduling the remaining depositions difficult, the Court will
extend the discovery deadline by three weeks. All depositions and discovery
in this matter shall be completed by Wednesday, May 17. All other deadlines
will remain the same.
R. Doc. 34-1 at 1.
See R. Doc. 21 at 1; R. Doc. 23.
GulfMark’s argument that trial should be continued because
plaintiff needs surgery is at odds with GulfMark’s argument in its motion for
partial summary judgment that plaintiff is at maximum medical
improvement. See R. Doc. 31-1 at 5.
For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion is DENIED, except that
the deposition and discovery deadline will be extended until May 17, 2017.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of May, 2017.
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?