Michels Corporation v. EMS USA, Inc.
OPINION AND ORDER re: 15 Opposed MOTION to Compel Mediation, Opposed MOTION for Continuance of Motion for Summary Judgment Submission. The Court DENIES Defendants Motion for Continuance as moot and DENIES Defendants Motion to Compel Mediation.. (Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(jdav, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EMS USA, INC.,
June 27, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-02340
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court in the above-referenced cause is Defendant EMS USA, Inc.’s
(“EMS”) Motion for Continuance of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Submission and
Motion to Compel Mediation (“Motion” or “Motion for Continuance”). Doc. 15. Having
considered the Motion, Response, record, and relevant law, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion
for Continuance as moot and denies Defendant’s Motion to Compel Mediation.
Plaintiff Michels Corporation (“Michels”) filed this lawsuit on August 4, 2016, asserting
claims for breach of contract and failure to comply with the Texas Prompt Payment Act against
Defendant EMS. Doc. 1. Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on December 19,
2016. Doc. 10. Defendant’s response was due January 9, 2017. Because the parties were
scheduled for mediation on January 10, however, on January 4 EMS filed its Unopposed Motion
for Leave to File Late Response (“Unopposed Motion”), in which the parties agreed to extend
the response deadline to January 13, 2017. Doc. 11. In its Unopposed Motion, EMS represented
that the parties had agreed that “if as a result of mediation the resolution of this dispute appears
likely, EMS’s response deadline will be extended indefinitely so as to give the parties time to
finalize settlement discussions and formalize any such settlement of this dispute.” Id. at 2. The
Court granted the Unopposed Motion on January 12, 2017. Doc. 13.
On the January 13 response deadline, EMS presented the Court with the present Motion
for Continuance rather than the expected response, arguing that “[a]lthough a final resolution of
the Related Lawsuits was not reached at the mediation, the parties have agreed to continue their
discussions in an earnest attempt to resolve their respective claims.” Doc. 15 at 3. On that basis,
EMS urged the Court to extend the deadline for an additional thirty days “so as to give the
parties in the Related Lawsuits time to continue their settlement discussions.” Id.
On April 6, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stacy held a scheduling conference in the present
case. In her Scheduling Order, Judge Stacy ordered EMS to respond to Michels’ pending Motion
for Summary Judgement on or before May 31, 2017. Doc. 20. EMS’s Motion for Continuance
thus became moot.
However, in its Motion, EMS asks the Court to alternatively order EMS and Michels to
mediation. Doc. 15 at 4. EMS provides the Court with no argument or authority for this request.
Id. Michels opposes the request, arguing that it is “baseless” and EMS is merely using its
pending Motion for Continuance as a dilatory tactic. Doc. 18 at 2. The Court agrees.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Continuance, Doc. 15, is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 26th day of June, 2017.
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?