Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Hopkins v. Speedway Superamerica LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

May 1, 2017

SHAWN HOPKINS, Plaintiff
v.
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC, et al., Defendants

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Colin Lindsay, Magistrate Judge.

         Introduction

         The parties filed a joint motion to enter a scheduling order. (DN 20.) The joint motion notes that the “Parties agreed on all provisions, but could not agree on a continuance of the discovery deadline which expired August 1, 2016.” (Id. at 1 n.1.) The parties asked for a telephonic status conference to schedule a trial date and included a proposed scheduling order in which the dates for a jury trial and pretrial conference have been left blank. (DN 20-1.)

         District Judge David J. Hale referred this matter to the undersigned under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (DN 9.)

         The Court will grant in part and deny in part the joint motion to amend the scheduling order. The Court will enter an amended scheduling order in accordance with the parties' joint proposed order. The Court will deny the parties' request for a telephonic status conference to schedule a trial date.

         The plaintiff, Shawn Hopkins, filed a separate motion to amend the scheduling order. (DN 22.) Speedway LLC (“Speedway”)[1] opposes Hopkins's motion. (DN 23.) Hopkins did not reply.

         The Court will deny Hopkins's motion to amend the scheduling order.

         Background

         On January 12, 2016, the Court entered the scheduling order in this matter. (DN 9.) The Court's scheduling order set the discovery deadline as August 1, 2016. (Id.). Soon after the Court entered the scheduling order, on January 29, the Court set a settlement conference for August 25. (DN 10.)

         The discovery deadline passed on August 1. On August 23, the Court remanded the settlement conference originally scheduled for August 25. (DN 13.) On September 12, the Court rescheduled the settlement conference for November 2. (DN 16.) On November 2, the parties participated in a settlement conference but were unable to reach agreement. (DN 18.)

         On December 6, Hopkins filed this motion seeking to extend the discovery deadline. (DN 22.)

         Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) governs the Court's scheduling order. “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4).

         Whether to deny a motion to modify a scheduling order is within the Court's discretion. Marcilis v. Twp. of Redford, 693 F.3d 589, 597 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Because the district court's decision was not clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or fanciful, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Marcilises' motion for a sixty-day adjournment of the scheduling order.”). “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.” Inge v. Rock Fin. Group, 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002) (internal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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