Opinion ID: 660185
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Motion for Adjournment or Leave to File Late Papers

Text: 9 The defendants first moved for summary judgment in June of 1991. Involved with a trial in another case, counsel for the Rounsevilles sought an adjournment until December 13, 1991, but defendants would consent to an adjournment only until November 8, 1991. Under the local rules in the Northern District of New York, the Rounsevilles' response papers were thus due October 25. Judge Munson's clerk telephoned the Rounsevilles' counsel when this deadline had passed without the submission of opposition papers, and only then did counsel respond with a letter and affidavit seeking an adjournment or leave to file late papers. Counsel for the Rounsevilles claimed primarily that he was seeking to settle this case with Judge Barrett, a course that would have eliminated the section 1983 claim and permitted the relocation of the rest of the case to state court. 10 The denial of an adjournment was within the District Court's ample discretion. See Dow Chemical Pacific Ltd. v. Rascator Maritime S.A., 782 F.2d 329, 341 (2d Cir.1986); see generally 5 James W. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice p 40.02 (2d ed. 1993). Counsel for the Rounsevilles does not present any compelling reason why settlement could not have been effected prior to October 25 or why he could not at least have made his adjournment request before the deadline.