Dwayne Anthony Cook v. Christopher Hudson and Ingram Industries, Inc.

E.D. Louisiana

Dwayne Anthony Cook v. Christopher Hudson and Ingram Industries, Inc.

DecidedNovember 14, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-02916

StatusUnknown

This text of Dwayne Anthony Cook v. Christopher Hudson and Ingram Industries, Inc. (Dwayne Anthony Cook v. Christopher Hudson and Ingram Industries, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dwayne Anthony Cook v. Christopher Hudson and Ingram Industries, Inc., (E.D. La. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DWAYNE ANTHONY COOK CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-2916

CHRISTOPHER HUDSON AND SECTION “R” INGRAM INDUSTRIES, INC.

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are two motions from plaintiff Dwayne Anthony Cook to continue trial and all pre-trial deadlines.1 Defendants oppose both motions.2 The Court denies the motions to continue. Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause standard requires the party seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.” S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up). Whether to grant or deny a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 1996). In deciding whether to grant a continuance, the Court’s “judgment range is

1 R. Docs. 31, 32. 2 R. Doc. 33. exceedingly wide, for... [it] must consider not only the facts of the particular case but also all of the demands on counsel’s time and the court’s.” Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 736 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting HC Gun & Knife Shows, Inc. v. City of Houston, 201 F.3d 544, 549-50 (5th Cir. 2000) (cleaned up)). The Court denies the motions to continue. The alleged accident occurred in August 2024. Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to conduct discovery and meet the Court’s deadlines, which were set in February 2025. That plaintiffs new counsel failed to enroll for five months is not good cause for a continuance and does not show any diligence. See S&W Enters., L.L.C., 315 F.3d at 535. The Court finds that the plaintiff has not established good cause to amend the scheduling order. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion to continue trial and all pre-trial deadlines. New Orleans, Louisiana, this_14th day of November, 2025.

Arwk Varvt1e. SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DWAYNE ANTHONY COOK CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-2916

CHRISTOPHER HUDSON AND SECTION “R” INGRAM INDUSTRIES, INC.

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are two motions from plaintiff Dwayne Anthony Cook to continue trial and all pre-trial deadlines.1 Defendants oppose both motions.2 The Court denies the motions to continue. Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause standard requires the party seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.” S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up). Whether to grant or deny a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 1996). In deciding whether to grant a continuance, the Court’s “judgment range is

1 R. Docs. 31, 32. 2 R. Doc. 33. exceedingly wide, for... [it] must consider not only the facts of the particular case but also all of the demands on counsel’s time and the court’s.” Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 736 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting HC Gun & Knife Shows, Inc. v. City of Houston, 201 F.3d 544, 549-50 (5th Cir. 2000) (cleaned up)). The Court denies the motions to continue. The alleged accident occurred in August 2024. Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to conduct discovery and meet the Court’s deadlines, which were set in February 2025. That plaintiffs new counsel failed to enroll for five months is not good cause for a continuance and does not show any diligence. See S&W Enters., L.L.C., 315 F.3d at 535. The Court finds that the plaintiff has not established good cause to amend the scheduling order. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion to continue trial and all pre-trial deadlines. New Orleans, Louisiana, this_14th day of November, 2025.

Arwk Varvt1e. SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dwayne Anthony Cook v. Christopher Hudson and Ingram Industries, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dwayne-anthony-cook-v-christopher-hudson-and-ingram-industries-inc-laed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack