Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00472/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00472-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

An order on the motion was entered yesterday in error and shall be vacated. 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM E. WINDHAM and )

GWENDOLYN J. WINDHAM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05CV472-VPM

) [WO]

B. W. CAPPS & SONS INC. )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

The parties have jointly moved to amend the scheduling order in this case (Doc #

19). As grounds for the motion, they represent that (1) “Mr. Pope and Mr. Rayfield can

no longer act as lead counsel,” and (2) “James A. Balli has agreed to undertake the

presentation of the Plaintiffs as lead counsel . . . .”1

Upon reviewing the file in this case, the court notes that 

! Discovery should have begun seven months ago during the first week of

August 2005;

! Since the plaintiffs filed their Notice of Costs and Expenses on 22 August

2005 (Doc. # 15), the parties filed no further pleadings until 7 March 2006;

and

! The deadline for filing dispositive motions expired on 27 January 2006, and

Case 3:05-cv-00472-VPM Document 23 Filed 03/10/06 Page 1 of 2
the discovery deadline is 24 April 2006.

The parties have made no representations which explain the reason - in view of

the aforementioned schedule - for their request for an extension. They have provided

the court no basis for finding or concluding that the time allocated for pretrial preparation

in this case was inadequate or materially compromised. Nor have they advised the court

of the status of their pretrial preparation (e.g., the status of discovery), or the reason that

the merger of firms and continued representation of the plaintiffs are mutually exclusive. 

They state merely that a change in formal representation has occurred; however,

based upon their representations, the court cannot possibly determine how that change

warrants an extension of the time limits, a significant one of which has already passed. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Court’s Order entered 9 March 2006 (Doc. # 21) is

VACATED. It is further 

ORDERED that the motion for extension of time is DENIED.

DONE this 10 day of March, 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00472-VPM Document 23 Filed 03/10/06 Page 2 of 2