FirstBank, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.

M.D. Alabama

FirstBank, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.

District Court, M.D. Alabama·Decided May 21, 2026·No. 2:24-cv-00522·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

FIRSTBANK, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CIVIL CASE NO. 2:24-cv-522-ECM ) [WO] WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R

On May 18, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Compel Wells Fargo’s Response to Discovery Requests.” (Doc. 71). After that motion was denied by the Magistrate Judge (doc. 72), Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to compel, certifying that they had met and conferred with Defendants (doc. 73). The sum and substance of those motions—naturally, and exclusively—were requests to compel responses to certain discovery requests. (See doc. 71 at 1–12; doc. 73 at 1–13). But buried in the last sentence of both motions are “addition[al]” requests for extensions of the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines “to accommodate Wells Fargo’s delay in providing the requested responses.” (Doc. 71 at 12; doc. 73 at 12–13). Plaintiffs do not cite, let alone satisfy, the standard relevant to these additional requests. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”); Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (1998) (“This good cause standard precludes modification unless the schedule cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” (quotation omitted)). In fact, Plaintiffs do not even say how much time they need—only that they need more of it. (Doc. 71 at 12; doc. 73 at 12–13). So to the extent Plaintiffs request extensions, those requests are due to be denied without prejudice, and Plaintiffs are advised to clearly state all the

relief they seek in future filings. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motions (docs. 71, 73) are DENIED without prejudice to the extent they request extensions of the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines. If Plaintiffs seek an extension of those deadlines, they must file a separate motion with citations to relevant legal authority and must specify how much additional time they

require. DONE this 21st day of May, 2026.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

FIRSTBANK, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CIVIL CASE NO. 2:24-cv-522-ECM ) [WO] WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R

On May 18, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Compel Wells Fargo’s Response to Discovery Requests.” (Doc. 71). After that motion was denied by the Magistrate Judge (doc. 72), Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to compel, certifying that they had met and conferred with Defendants (doc. 73). The sum and substance of those motions—naturally, and exclusively—were requests to compel responses to certain discovery requests. (See doc. 71 at 1–12; doc. 73 at 1–13). But buried in the last sentence of both motions are “addition[al]” requests for extensions of the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines “to accommodate Wells Fargo’s delay in providing the requested responses.” (Doc. 71 at 12; doc. 73 at 12–13). Plaintiffs do not cite, let alone satisfy, the standard relevant to these additional requests. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”); Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (1998) (“This good cause standard precludes modification unless the schedule cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” (quotation omitted)). In fact, Plaintiffs do not even say how much time they need—only that they need more of it. (Doc. 71 at 12; doc. 73 at 12–13). So to the extent Plaintiffs request extensions, those requests are due to be denied without prejudice, and Plaintiffs are advised to clearly state all the

relief they seek in future filings. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motions (docs. 71, 73) are DENIED without prejudice to the extent they request extensions of the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines. If Plaintiffs seek an extension of those deadlines, they must file a separate motion with citations to relevant legal authority and must specify how much additional time they

require. DONE this 21st day of May, 2026.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

FirstBank, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., (M.D. Ala. 2026).

Pincite

FirstBank, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al. (FirstBank, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.