Carter v. Cain

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IRMA JEAN CARTER CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS 17-201-SDD-SDJ N. BURL CAIN, et al.

RULING

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment1 filed by Defendants James LeBlanc, Burl Cain, Darryl Vannoy, and Leslie Dupont (collectively, “Defendants”). Local rule 7(f) of the Middle District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the motion. Despite this rule, Plaintiff Irma Jean Carter (“Carter”) failed to timely oppose this motion, which was electronically filed on August 21, 2020. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Court, Plaintiff was required to file an opposition no later than September 11, 2020. At no time did Plaintiff request an extension of time to oppose this motion. Therefore, the pending motion is deemed to be unopposed and further, after reviewing the record, the Court finds that the Motion has merit, particularly because Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts2 is uncontroverted, and the summary judgment evidence submitted supports Defendants’ arguments. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment3 is GRANTED,

1 Rec. Doc. No. 92. 2 Rec. Doc. No. 92-2. 3 Rec. Doc. No. 92. 62615 Page 1 of 2 and this matter shall be dismissed with prejudice. Any response to this Ruling, which should explain Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s deadlines, based on the appropriate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, shall be filed within fourteen (14) days and must be accompanied by an opposition memorandum to the original Motion. Counsel for Plaintiff is cautioned that the Fifth Circuit has routinely

concluded that calendaring errors do not constitute “excusable neglect” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1).4 Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 14th day of October, 2020.

________________________________ SHELLY D. DICK CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

4 See, e.g., Buckmire v. Mem'l Hermann Healthcare Sys. Inc., 456 Fed.Appx. 431, 432 (5th Cir. 2012) (affirming the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b)(1) motion where the lawyer “forgot to ‘calendar’ the deadline for a response”); cf. Brittingham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 543 Fed.Appx. 372, 374 (5th Cir. 2013) (“We have previously held that a district court does not abuse its discretion when it denies a Rule 60(b)(1) motion where the proffered justification for relief is the careless mistake of counsel.”). 62615 Page 2 of 2