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)
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?