Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stipe v. Butler

United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana

January 20, 2015

BRUCE STIPE (#152145)
v.
R. BUTLER, ET AL

RULINGS ON MOTIONS

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Summary Judgment. Record document number 62. No opposition or other response has been filed.

The motion is premised, in part, on the belief that the defendants moved to stay discovery. They did not. Defendant did move to reset the deadlines for filing summary judgment motions if their Motion to Dismiss is denied.[1] That motion was granted, extending the deadline filing summary judgment motions to 120 days from the date of the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.[2] A ruling has not been issued on the Motion to Dismiss; therefore, the time for filing summary judgment motions has not yet begun to run.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Summary Judgment is premature and unnecessary.[3]

Also before the court is the Plaintiff’s Opposition and Motion to Deny Summary Judgment. Record document number 63. Defendants filed a response.[4]

As they correctly explained, the defendants have not filed a motion for summary judgment and the time by which they must do so has not expired. Plaintiff’s motion is premature.

Plaintiff’s Opposition and Motion to Deny Summary Judgment is premature.

Also before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Deny the Motion to Dismiss as Abandoned; Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Deny Summary Judgment; Alternatively, Motion to Defer Ruling on Summary Judgment. Record document number 65. Defendants filed a response.[5]

Defendants did not abandon their Motion to Dismiss by not moving to stay discovery or by participating in discovery.[6]Insofar as the plaintiff again moved to deny summary judgment to the defendants, the motion is premature as the defendants have not moved for summary judgment. Nor did the defendants move a second time to extend the time file a summary judgment motion, as the plaintiff asserted. Defendants moved for an extension of time to serve their discovery responses.[7]

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deny the Motion to Dismiss as Abandoned; Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Deny Summary Judgment; Alternatively, Motion to Defer Ruling on Summary Judgment has no merit.

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motions are decided as follows:

Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Summary Judgment (record document number 62) is denied as premature;

Plaintiff’s Opposition and Motion to Deny Summary Judgment (record document number 63) is denied as premature; and, Motion to Deny the Motion to Dismiss as Abandoned; Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Deny Summary Judgment; Alternatively, Motion to Defer Ruling on Summary Judgment (record document number 65) is denied.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.