Bogan v. MTD Consumer Group, Inc.

Filing 92

AMENDED ORDER re 91 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, granting 89 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 90 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 2/9/2017. (adm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION SHEANETER J. BOGAN V. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14CV225-SA-DAS MTD CONSUMER GROUP, INC. DEFENDANT ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Expenses [89], as well as Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time for the Filing of Post-Trial Motions Under FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) [90]. Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B) requires a motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses to be filed within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the judgment. However, for good cause shown, the court may extend such deadline. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b). Plaintiff notes that a Motion for Attorney’s Fees may become moot pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s anticipated post-trial motion requesting a new trial on the issue of damages, and therefore requests that the deadline be extended to fourteen days after the entry of this Court’s final order disposing of all post-trial motions. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. Turning to Defendant’s Motion, Rule 59(e), provides in pertinent part, “a motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). However, the court is not permitted to extend the time in which such a motion may be filed. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6 (“A court must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and (d), 52(b), 59(b), (d), and (e), and 60(b)”). Therefore, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED. SO ORDERED this 9th day of February, 2017. /s/ Sharion Aycock 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?