Federal Trade Commission v. Payday Financial, LLC et al

Filing 92

ORDER denying 88 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by U. S. District Judge Roberto A. Lange on 1/30/13. (CMS)

f
,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
CENTRAL DIVISION
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PAYDAY FINANCIAL, LLC, et aI.,
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

CIV 11-3017-RAL

FILED
JAN 30 2013

~~
f

ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER AMENDED
SCHEDULING ORDER

This Court has had before it Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count
VI for a number ofmonths. Despite beginning work on a decision in October of 20 12, after oral
argument on the motion during that month and despite expecting to have an opinion and order
on the issue completed during 2012, this Court has struggled with its decision, and has needed
to focus on numerous other cases, some of which required more immediate attention. Mindful
of this Court's own cause of delay in this case, this Court, on November 14,2012, entered a
Fourth Amended Scheduling Order, Doc. 86, granting extension of time of deadlines more
generous than the parties had sought.

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider Amended

Scheduling Order, Doc. 88, asking the Court to scale back the deadlines in line with what the
parties had sought. A district court has broad discretion to determine whether and how to amend
a scheduling order. See Rahn v. Hawkins, 464 F.3d 813, 822-23 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding the
district court has discretion to determine whether and when good cause exists to modify
scheduling order.). This Court considers the extension of deadlines it granted to be appropriate
in light of the delay caused by this Court's machinations on how to rule on Defendants' Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment. For good cause, it is hereby

I

ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider Amended Scheduling Order, Doc. 88,
is denied.
Dated January 29,2013.
BY THE COURT:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2