BLACKWELL v. AUTO-OWNERS (MUTUAL) INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 1:16-cv-2842-STA-egb.

JENNIFER BLACKWELL and DAMIEN BLACKWELL, Plaintiffs, v. AUTO-OWNERS (MUTUAL) INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 12 U.S.C. § 635
Cause: 12 U.S.C. § 635 Breach of Insurance Contract
Nature of Suit: 110 Insurance
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Circuit Court Clerk Beverly Dunaway, Miscellaneous, Pro Se.

Jennifer Blackwell, Plaintiff, represented by Clinton H. Scott , GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER PLC & James Brandon McWherter , GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC.

Damien Blackwell, Plaintiff, represented by Clinton H. Scott , GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER PLC & James Brandon McWherter , GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC.

Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Parks T. Chastain , BREWER KRAUSE BROOKS & CHASTAIN, Ashley Elizabeth Geno , BREWER KRAUSE BROOKS & CHASTAIN & Edward Jason Ferrell , BREWER KRAUSE BROOKS & CHASTAIN.


ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION

S. THOMAS ANDERSON, Chief District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Company's Motion for Extension (ECF No. 33) filed on June 8, 2017. Defendant seeks an extension of the deadline for completing fact discovery and other deadlines related to experts. Defendant's Motion is DENIED. Local Rule 7.2(a)(1) states that the Clerk of Court will accept for filing only motions accompanied by a memorandum of facts and law. Defendant has not filed a supporting memorandum of facts and law to show good cause for the extensions sought in the Motion. Without a memorandum of facts and law, the Court cannot determine whether good cause exists to extend the case management deadlines. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that a "schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "The primary measure of Rule 16's `good cause' standard is the moving party's diligence in attempting to meet the case management order's requirements." Bank of Am., N.A. v. Corporex Realty & Inv. Corp., 661 F. App'x 305, 317 (6th Cir. 2016)I (quoting Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002)). Therefore, Defendant's Motion for Extension is DENIED without prejudice to refile the Motion with a memorandum of facts and law showing good cause to extend the scheduling order deadlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases