Julka v. Standard Insurance Company

Filing 56

ORDER denying as moot plaintiff's 51 Motion for Court to Hold Matter in Abeyance Until the end of 10.18.2010 re 16 Pretrial Conference Order; denying plaintiff's 52 Motion for Leave to File; denying plaintiff's 53 Motion to Ame nd/Correct. Because plaintiff has failed to file any opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment, it will be taken under advisement and decided as the court's calendar permits. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 11/2/2010. (jef),(ps)

Julka v. Standard Insurance Company

Doc. 56

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

PETER T. JULKA, P l a i n t i f f, v. 09-cv-534-slc S T A N D A R D INSURANCE COMPANY, D efend an t. O P IN IO N and ORDER

Defendant Standard Insurance Company was allowed to file a late motion for sum m ary judgment on August 12, 2010. Since then plaintiff Peter T. Julka was granted two reques ts for extensions of time to file his opposition to defendant's motion. In my

S eptem b e r 28, 2010 order granting plaintiff an extension until October 4, 2010, I stated that I would not grant a third request from plaintiff for an extension of time. Plaintiff did not, however, submit his opposition materials on October 4. Instead on October 15, he filed a motion for the court to hold the matter in abeyance until October 1 8 , 2010, the date he planned to file his opposition materials. Dkt. # 51. Instead of filing th ese materials, he filed a motion for leave to file his own motion for summary judgment and a motion to correct the scheduling order on October19. Dkt. ## 52 and 53. In both these pleadings, he seeks leave to file a motion for summary judgment. He asserts that if his m otio ns are granted he would file a motion for summary judgment and a single brief in support of his motion and in response to the defendant's motion. Also, he concedes that the brief is not finished. U nfo rtunately plaintiff's motions are too late. He was to have filed his response to the defendant's motion almost a month ago, after being granted two extensions. No further

Dockets.Justia.com

extension s will be granted. Although the court is sympathetic to plaintiff's emotional state a f t er the illness and death of his dog, plaintiff has had more than enough time to file his o ppo sitio n to defendant's motion for summary judgment. Further, if he had wanted to file his own motion for summary judgment he could have asked the court for permission to do in August. Plaintiff's motions will be denied. Because plaintiff has failed to file any

opposition to defendant's motion, it will be taken under advisement and decided as the cou rt's calendar permits.

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that: 1 . Plaintiff Peter Julka's motion to hold the matter in abeyance until October 18, 20 10 , dkt. #51, is DENIED as moot. 2 . Plaintiff's motions for leave to file a motion for summary judgment and to amend the pretrial conference order, dkt. ## 52 and 53, are DENIED.

E n tered this 2n d day of November, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s/ S T E P H E N L. CROCKER M agistrate Judge

2