Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. Conreal LLC et al
Filing
226
ORDER denying 220 Motion for Leave to File Motion, Instanter; and TEXT ORDER finding as moot 225 Motion to Strike. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 7/12/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOSEPH CARAMADRE; RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN; ESTATE PLANNING
)
RESOURCES, INC.; ADM ASSOCIATES,
)
LLC; HARRISON CONDIT; EDWARD
)
MAGGIACOMO, JR.; and FORTUNE
)
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY and WESTERN RESERVE
LIFE ASSURANCE CO. OF OHIO,
C.A. No. 09-470 S
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before the Court is a Motion for Leave to File Motion,
Instanter
(“Motion”),
filed
by
Defendant
ADM
Associates,
LLC
(“ADM”), requesting “leave to submit its memorandum of law in
support of its opposition to Plaintiffs[’] motion for partial
summary judgment in the above-referenced matter today [June 16,
2016].”
Motion.
(ECF No. 220.)
(ECF No. 223.)
Plaintiffs filed an Objection to ADM’s
For the reasons that follow, ADM’s Motion
is DENIED.
On March 17, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.
(ECF No. 212.)
Responses were due April 4,
2016.
On April 6, 2016, Defendants ADM and Joseph Caramadre filed
a Joint Motion for [30] Day Enlargement of Scheduling Order.
No. 215.)
(ECF
The Court granted this motion and gave Defendants until
May 15 to file a response to Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion for Summary
Judgment.
(04/14/2016 Text Order.)
On May 31, 2016, the Court
received a letter from Plaintiffs (attached to this Order as
Exhibit 1), noting that Defendants had again missed the deadline
to file their response and requesting that the Court “consider
ruling on the summary judgment motion based on the papers that
have been filed to date.”
(Ex. 1 at 1.)
On June 2 – over two weeks after their response was due –
Defendants ADM and Caramadre filed a Motion for Final Enlargement
of Time to Submit Their Responses to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.
(ECF No. 218.)
They represented to the Court
that “[t]he responses are nearly complete, and the Defendants will
not require any further enlargement of time in this case.”
at 1.)
(Id.
The Court granted Defendants’ motion and gave Defendants
until June 15 to file their response, but specifically indicated
that “no further extensions will be granted.”
Order (emphasis in original).)
(06/08/2015 Text
Defendants again failed to meet
the deadline and ADM filed this Motion on June 16.
The only
explanation given was “that due to an exceptionally large caseload,
and the incarceration of Defendant Caramadre, additional time was
2
required to file ADM Associates, LLC’s memorandum of law.”
Mot. 1, ECF No. 220.)
(ADM’s
ADM then filed its Objection to Plaintiffs’
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
(ECF No. 221.)
Defendants have missed the filing deadline for their response
three times. Both previous requests for extension were filed after
the due date for Defendants’ response and failed to adequately
explain the dilatory behavior; the Court nevertheless extended the
deadline in an effort to accommodate Defendants and their new
counsel – but the Court warned that no further extensions would be
granted.
The Court meant what it said.
“[E]nough is enough.”
Mills v. Maine, 118 F.3d 37, 54 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting Sarnoff
v. American Home Prods. Corp., 798 F.2d 1075, 1079 (7th Cir.
1986)).
ADM’s
counsel’s
caseload
and
Mr.
Caramadre’s
incarceration were both issues that Defendants were aware of when
they represented in their June 2 motion that they would “not
require any further enlargement of time in this case.”
Final Enlargement of Time 1, ECF No. 218.)
(Mot. for
There is no excuse for
Defendants’ repeated failure to comply with the scheduling orders
in this case, particularly given the Court’s statement that no
further extensions would be granted, not to mention the fact that
Defendant Caramadre is himself an attorney.
3
Accordingly, the Motion (ECF No. 220) is hereby DENIED and
the Court will disregard ADM’s Objection to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 221).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: July 12, 2016
4
EXHIBIT 1
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?