Smithfield Business Park, LLC v. SLR International Corporation
ORDER DENYING as moot 74 Motion for Summary Judgment and DENYING as moot 75 Motion to Strike, but without prejudice to renew if settlement is not consummated. Based on the parties' representations that a settlement is being finalized, they are hereby DIRECTED to file the appropriate dismissal documents on or before 9/19/2014, though the court will consider extensions of this deadline if necessary. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 8/21/2014. (Grady, B.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SMITHFIELD BUSINESS PARK, LLC,
SLR INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
SLR INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
Third-Party Plaintiff, )
MASSOUD TABRIZI, INDUSTRIAL
REALTY GROUP, LLC, AND SESTECH )
Third-Party Defendants. )
On August 11, 2014, the court entered an order [DE-148] in this case directing Smithfield
and SLR to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. SLR
timely responded [DE-150], and for the reasons stated in that response, the court will not dismiss
this action for failure to prosecute.
As SLR notes in its response, some of its claims against Smithfield and Tabrizi remain
pending in this matter 1 and the parties have not filed any dispositive motions with respect to
In its response to the show cause order, SLR lists a number of claims as "pending at this time"
that the court dismissed with prejudice in the July 29, 2014 order. Compare July 29, 2014 Order [DE146] with SLR response to show cause order [DE-150]. In light of this, and counsel's failure to respond
to the July 29,2014 order, the court is wondering if counsel has even readthe July 29,2014 order.
Nevertheless, SLR is correct that some its claims against Smithfield and Tabrizi remain pending.
those claims. The court notes that the scheduling order in this case set a deadline of August 8,
2014 for filing any new dispositive motions. Scheduling Order [DE-141] at 3. That deadline has
expired and none of the parties filed any dispositive motions regarding SLR's claims against
Smithfield and Tabrizi or requested an extension of the deadline.
The court understands that the parties have been focusing on settling this matter and of
course the court encourages those efforts. But the fact that the parties are close to settlement is
not an excuse to ignore the deadlines set in the scheduling order or other court orders.
Accordingly, in the event settlement is not consummated and the parties wish to file additional
dispositive motions with respect to those claims, the parties will need to seek court approval to
extend the deadlines set in the scheduling order.
Based on the parties' representations that a settlement is being finalized, they are hereby
DIRECTED to file the appropriate dismissal documents on or before September 19, 2014,
though the court will consider extensions of this deadline if necessary. In light of the settlement
in principle, SLR's motion for summary judgment [DE-74] and the motion to strike expert
testimony [DE-7 4] are DENIED as moot, but without prejudice to renew if settlement is not
consummated. If settlement is not consummated and SLR requests that the court consider the
motions at docket entries 74 and 75, the court is not inclined to allow further briefing on those
motions in light ofthe parties' failure to respond to the court's July 29, 2014 order.
SO ORDERED .
This the _lL day of August, 2014.
enior 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?