Wadkins et al v. Werner et al
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 38 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,. Signed by Senior Judge Glen H. Davidson on 7/6/15. (rel)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
JONATHAN FRANKLIN WADKINS,
SANDRA KA Y WADKINS, and
FRANKLIN MARTIN WADKINS
v.
PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. I: 14-cv-00209-GHD-DAS
KEISHA ELIZABETH WERNER and
JOHN ALLEN WERNER, III
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PARTIES' AMENDED JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINES
Presently before the Court is the parties' amended joint motion for extension of deadlines
[37] to file a motion under Rules 59 and 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28
U.S.C. § 1292(b) for certification for interlocutory appeal. The proposed extension is sought for
the stated purpose of engaging in good faith settlement negotiations. Upon due consideration,
the Court finds that the amended motion for extension should be granted in part and denied in
part.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a court may for good cause extend the
time for an act to be done, but "must not extend the time to act under Rule[] ... 59(b), (d), and
(e)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1}-(2). Therefore, under Rule 6(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the deadline set by Rule 59 for the parties to file a motion to alter or amend the
judgment or a motion for new trial is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by a court. Leishman
v. Associated Wholesale Elec. Co., 318 U.S. 203, 545 n.4, 63 S. Ct. 543, 87 L. Ed. 714 (1943);
Heck v. Triche, 775 F.3d 265, 271 n.5 (5th Cir. 2014); Ramirez v. /sgur, 544 F. App'x 532, 533
(5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). For these reasons, this Court cannot extend the parties' deadline to
file a Rule 59 motion, and that portion of the amended joint motion for extension shall be denied.
1
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated it has "jurisdiction over final decisions
under 28 U.S.c. § 1291; certain interlocutory decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292; partial
judgments certified as final pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b); and certain
decisions under the collateral order doctrine." Lewis v. Sheriff's Dep't Bossier Parish, 478 F.
App'x 809, 813 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (citing Dardar v. LaJourche Realty Co., 849 F.2d
955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted)). "[Rule] 54(b) pennits district courts to authorize
immediate appeal of dispositive rulings on separate claims in a civil action raising multiple
claims." Gelboim v. Bank ojAm. Corp., -
U.S. - , 135 S. Ct. 897, 898-99, 190 L. Ed. 2d 789
(Jan. 21, 2015). "[28 U.S.c. 1292(b)] allows district courts to designate for review interlocutory
orders 'not otherwise appealable,' where immediate appeal 'may materially advance the ultimate
tennination of the litigation.' " !d., 135 S. Ct. at 906 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (emphasis
removed).
The Court finds that the parties have stated sufficient reasons for such an extension
and no authority can be found suggesting the Court cannot grant an extension of time for either
of these purposes. Therefore, that portion of the amended joint motion for extension shall be
granted.
ACCORDINGLY, the parties' joint motion for extension of deadlines [37] is GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The deadlines to file a motion under Rule 54(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.c. § 1292(b) for certification for interlocutory
appeal are hereby extended to Monday, August 31, 2015. The deadline to file a motion under
Rule 59 may not be extended, as the same is jurisdictional.
Furthennore, the parties' initial joint motion for extension of deadlines [36] shall be
DENIED AS MOOT.
2
An order in accordance with this opinion shall issue this day.
~
THIS, thecl""day ofJuly,
20150& II ~~
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICTjUDGE
3
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?