Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00909/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00909-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

 

CONNIE SMITH, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

 v. ) 2:14cv909-MHT

) (WO) 

ROBERT EDGE, II, and PFG

TRANSCO,

)

)

)

 Defendants. )

 

ORDER 

 It is ORDERED that the motion to extend the 

dispositive-motions deadline (doc. no. 57) is denied. 

* * * 

 This court has made clear that, “A request or 

motion for extension of a deadline in any court order 

... must indicate that movant has, in a timely manner, 

previously contacted counsel for all other parties; and 

..., based on that contact, must state whether counsel 

for all other parties agree to or oppose the extension 

request or motion,” and that, “A request or motion that 

fails to meet this requirement will be denied outright, 

unless the movant offers a credible explanation in the 

Case 2:14-cv-00909-MHT-CSC Document 58 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 2
request or motion why this requirement has not been 

met.” Scheduling Order (doc. no. 11), § 15(B). Movant 

here has failed to comply with this requirement. 

 Moreover, “Absent stated unforeseen and unavoidable 

circumstances beyond the control of the movant, ... 

‘eleventh hour’ extension requests and motions will be 

denied outright.” Id. The movant has failed to offer 

any explanation as to why this motion was filed more 

than a month after the deadline for dispositive motions 

in this case, rather than days, or even weeks, in 

advance. 

 DONE, this the 26th day of October, 2015. 

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:14-cv-00909-MHT-CSC Document 58 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 2