IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MARIA LUIS and LUCY GOMEZ, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. 1:12-cv-2922

)

v. )

)

SMITH PARTNERS & ASSOCIATES, LTD., )

COYA SMITH, and ANDY HORN, )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS SMITH PARTNERS & ASSOCIATES, LTD.,

COYA SMITH & ANDY HORN’S MOTION AND SUPPORTING

MEMORANDUM TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

NOW COME the Defendants, Smith Partners & Associates, Ltd. (“Smith Partners”),

Coya Smith (“Smith”), and Andy Horn (“Horn”), (collectively “Defendants”), by and through

their attorneys, KARBAL COHEN ECONOMOU SILK & DUNNE LLC, and pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 6(b), respectfully move the Court for an Order extending the Scheduling

Order (Dkt. No. 22) deadlines by sixty (60) days. In support of this Motion, Defendants state as

follows:

1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint (Dkt No. 1) against Defendants on April 19, 2012. 

The Complaint alleged seven different causes of action directed against all Defendants.

2. Defendants Smith Partners, Smith, Horn, and Smith REO Properties (“Smith

REO”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt No. 13) on July 3, 2012, and a

Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 18) on July 9,

2012. 

3. On July 9, 2012, the court entered a Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 22) entering and

continuing Defendants’motion to dismiss, ordering Plaintiffs to file a response by August 6,

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 37 Filed: 10/26/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:275
2012, ordering Defendants to file a reply by August 27, 2012, ordering the parties to serve Rule

26(a)(1) disclosures by July 30, 2012, ordering the parties to serve written discovery requests by

August 20, 2012, setting a deadline of November 12, 2012 to move to amend pleadings and add

new parties, setting a discovery closing date of January 9, 2013, and ordering dispositive motions

to be filed by February 6, 2013.

4. On July 30, 2012, Defendants Smith Partners, Smith REO, Horn, and Smith

timely filed their Rule 26(A)(1) disclosures. (Dkt. 23).

5. On August 20, 2012, Defendants Smith Partners, Smith REO, Horn, and Smith

timely served written interrogatories and requests for production of documents to Plaintiffs. 

(Dkt. 28).

6. On October 18, 2012, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order,

granting Defendants’motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part. (Dkt. 34, 35). The court

ordered as follows:

Defendants’motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Count VII, Count I

to the extent it seeks injunctive relief, and the claims against Smith REO Properties are

dismissed with prejudice. Count II is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs have leave

to replead Count II until 11/8/2012. The motion to dismiss is otherwise denied. If

Plaintiffs do not replead Count II, Defendants shall answer the surviving portions of the

complaint by 11/15/2012. If Plaintiffs do attempt to replead Count II, Defendants shall

answer or otherwise plead to Count II and shall answer the other portions of the

complaint by 11/29/2012. (Dkt. 34).

7. On October 18, 2012, Defendants’counsel telephoned Plaintiffs’counsel to

remind him that Plaintiffs’Rule 26(A)(1) Disclosures and answers to written discovery were

overdue.

8. On October 19, 2012, Plaintiffs served their Rule 26(A)(1) Disclosures, over 75

days late after they had been due on July 30, 2012.

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 37 Filed: 10/26/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:276
9. On October 23, 2012, Plaintiffs served written discovery requests to Defendants,

over 60 days late after they had been due on August 20, 2012.

10. On October 25, 2012, Defendants’counsel again telephoned Plaintiffs’counsel to

remind him that Plaintiffs’answers to written discovery were overdue. Plaintiffs’counsel

indicated that Plaintiffs would answer discovery from Defendants by October 30, 2012.

11. As of the date and time of the filing of this motion, Plaintiffs have not yet

answered interrogatories or responded to production requests from Defendants, which were

served back on August 20, 2012 and to which answers were due on September 19, 2012. 

Plaintiffs have represented that they will answer discovery by October 30, 2012.

12. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b) states a court may grant an extension “for good cause”if a

motion is made before the original time expires.

13. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(4) states “A schedule may be modified only for good

cause and with the judge’s consent.”

14. Good cause for modification of the Scheduling Order exists for the following

reasons:

(a) Plaintiffs have been delinquent in answering discovery, which has caused

prejudice to Defendants in identifying whether to move to amend pleadings and

whether to add new parties, in identifying additional discovery needed, and in

preparation for the filing of a dispositive motion.

(b) Plaintiffs have been allowed until November 8, 2012 to replead Count II of the

Complaint for Violation of R.I.C.O. This November 8, 2012 date is only 4 days

before the deadline for determining whether to move to amend the pleadings or to

add new parties. As Plaintiff has been allowed additional time to file an

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 37 Filed: 10/26/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:277
Amended Complaint, it is only fair for Defendants to be allowed further time to

determine whether to move to amend the pleadings or to add new parties.

15. Defendants respectfully request that the court extending the Scheduling Order

(Dkt. No. 22) deadlines by sixty (60) days as follows:

Defendants shall move to amend pleadings and

add new parties

January 11, 2013

Discovery to close March 11, 2013

Defendants shall file dispositive motions April 8, 2013

16. Plaintiffs’counsel Jonathan Lubin has advised that he has no objection to an

extension of the Scheduling Order.

WHEREFORE, Defendants Smith Partners & Associates, Ltd., Coya Smith, and Andy

Horn respectfully request that this Court grant their motion for an Order extending the

Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 22) deadlines by sixty (60) days. 

Respectfully submitted,

Smith Partners & Associates, Ltd.,

Coya Smith, and Andy Horn

/s/ Newton C. Marshall

One of their Attorneys 

Newton C. Marshall (ARDC No. 6209427)

Michelle M. Blum (ARDC No. 6295921)

Karbal Cohen Economou Silk & Dunne LLC

150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 1700

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 431-3700

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 37 Filed: 10/26/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:278