Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00194/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00194-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM DAVID YOUNG, III PETITIONER 

v. Case No. 3:19-cv-00194-LPR 

HOWARD FORD INC, doing business as RESPONDENT 

Ford of West Memphis 

 

 ORDER 

Plaintiff William David Young, III filed a Complaint against Defendant Howard Ford, Inc. 

on July 8, 2019 alleging unlawful employment discrimination based on age. (Doc. 1). The Court 

entered a Final Scheduling Order (Doc. 12) that set the deadline for dispositive motions as May 

18, 2020. Defendant met that deadline when it filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, Brief, and 

Statement of Facts on May 18, 2020. (Docs. 16-18). Mr. Young’s Response was due on June 1, 

2020. Mr. Young did not respond at that time. Defendant’s Status Report also identified issues 

with getting in touch with counsel for Mr. Young. (Doc. 19). 

On June 2, 2020, a day after the deadline, Mr. Sessions, counsel for Mr. Young, emailed 

the Court and opposing counsel that Mr. Young needed a short extension of time to respond to 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court instructed Mr. Sessions to formalize Mr. 

Young’s request by filing a motion with the Court and explaining what, if any, good cause existed 

for the extension. Mr. Sessions responded that he would file a motion for an extension of time. 

As of the date of this Order, Mr. Young has not filed such a motion (or anything else since 

participating in the Rule 26(f) Report filed on September 16, 2019). Accordingly, the Court orders 

Mr. Young to file all the necessary summary judgment response documents, attached to a motion 

Case 3:19-cv-00194-LPR Document 20 Filed 06/16/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

asking for leave to do an act out of time. Mr. Young’s motion must explain what, if any, excusable 

neglect exists for his failure to timely file responsive summary judgment submissions. See FED.

R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(B). 

If Mr. Young fails to do so by June 23, 2020, the Court will construe Mr. Young’s inaction 

as a failure to prosecute, and the Court will thus dismiss this case. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Holly 

v. Anderson, 467 F.3d 1120, 1121 (8th Cir. 2006) (maintaining that a district court may dismiss an 

action sua sponte when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order); Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 

166, 168 (8th Cir. 1995) (stating that district courts may sua sponte dismiss a case for failure to 

prosecute). 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of June 2020. 

________________________________ 

LEE P. RUDOFSKY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:19-cv-00194-LPR Document 20 Filed 06/16/20 Page 2 of 2