Aspen Specialty Insurance Co v. Technical Industries Inc

Filing 101

ORDER denying 86 Motion to Strike 85 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 84 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 83 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion ; granting 87 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 12/2/14. (crt,Kennedy, T)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12-cv-02315 VERSUS MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA TECHNICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. BY CONSENT OF THE PARTIES ORDER Considering the motion for expedited consideration (Rec. Doc. 87) of Evanston Insurance Company’s motion to strike (Rec. Doc. 86), IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, with oral argument having been heard on November 24, 2014. Considering the motion to strike (Rec. Doc. 86), which was filed by Evanston Insurance Company and sought to strike Technical Industries, Inc.’s briefs responsive to Evanston’s motions for partial summary judgment (Rec. Docs. 73, 75, 76) on the basis that Technical’s briefs were not timely, IT IS ORDERED that the motion (Rec. Doc. 86) is DENIED. There are two reasons why the motion is denied. First, even if the motion to strike were granted, the Court would be required to review and rule upon the merits of the pending motions and could not grant them simply because there was no opposition brief filed. “A motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply because there is no opposition....”1 Second, any potential prejudice to Evanston that might have resulted from Technical’s late filing was avoided by affording Evanston an extended time period for preparing reply briefs. “Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), the district court is granted broad discretion to expand filing deadlines.”2 Accordingly, Technical’s tardiness was not permitted to prejudice Evanston, and the Court will decide the pending motions on their merits. Therefore, there is no valid basis for striking Technical’s opposition briefs. Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana, this 2nd day of December 2014. ____________________________________ PATRICK J. HANNA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 Day v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat. Ass'n, 768 F.3d 435 (5th Cir. 2014), quoting Hibernia Nat. Bank v. Administracion Cent. Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir. 1985). See, also, Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 362, n. 3 (5th Cir. 1995). 2 Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d at 367. -2-

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?