Seastrand v. US Bank NA et al

Filing 92

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER STRIKING 89 PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 11/29/18. (jlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
JOHN SEASTRAND, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

U.S. BANK, N.A., a nationally chartered
bank; RALPH PACE, an individual acting in
his official capacity as an officer and
employee of U.S. BANK, N.A.; JACKLYN
W. MILLER, GARY S. MILLER, JAY M.
MINNICK, individuals; MILLER
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., a Utah
corporation; MILLER MINNICK
ASSOCIATES I, LLC and MILLWOOD
COMPANIES, LC, Utah limited liability
companies; and JOHN DOES 1-10

Case No. 2:17-CV-214 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Miller
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement. Defendants filed their Motion for Summary
Judgement on October 16, 2018. Under DUCivR 7-1(3), Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition
was due within 28 days after receiving service. However, Plaintiff requested and was granted an
extension by the Court to file his opposition by 4:30 p.m. on November 20, 2018. Plaintiff failed
to file by that deadline. On November 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Memorandum. Although the
Memorandum is one week late, Plaintiff has not sought, nor has the Court granted, leave to file
out of time. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), the Court may extend a filing
deadline upon a showing of “good cause” and “excusable neglect.” Plaintiff has presented the

1

Court with neither. Therefore, the Court will strike the Memorandum in Opposition and all
attached exhibits.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment (Docket
No. 89) is STRICKEN.
DATED this 29th day of November 2018.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

2