Reese v. Royal Audio/Video Supply Company, Inc.

E.D. Louisiana

Reese v. Royal Audio/Video Supply Company, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Louisiana·Decided August 29, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-01809·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRADLY A. REESE CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-1809

ROYAL AUDIO/VIDEO SUPPLY CO., SECTION “R” (1) INC. D/B/A/ ROYAL PRODUCTIONS

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment.1 Plaintiff requests this extension due to the length and complexity of the defendant’s motion and supporting pleadings.2 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 Enter., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted). Whether to grant or deny a continuance is within the

1 R. Doc. 23. 2 Id. at 1. 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 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) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The Court finds that there is good cause to modify the scheduling order: as follows: plaintiff's response/opposition to defendant’s motion for

summary judgment is due no later than September 12, 2025; defendant’s reply, if any, is due no later than September 19, 2025. The motion will be set for submission on October 1, 2025. No other deadlines in the scheduling order are reset.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of August, 2025. derek Varner SARAH S.VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 R. Doc. 17.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRADLY A. REESE CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-1809

ROYAL AUDIO/VIDEO SUPPLY CO., SECTION “R” (1) INC. D/B/A/ ROYAL PRODUCTIONS

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment.1 Plaintiff requests this extension due to the length and complexity of the defendant’s motion and supporting pleadings.2 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 Enter., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted). Whether to grant or deny a continuance is within the

1 R. Doc. 23. 2 Id. at 1. 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 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) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The Court finds that there is good cause to modify the scheduling order: as follows: plaintiff's response/opposition to defendant’s motion for

summary judgment is due no later than September 12, 2025; defendant’s reply, if any, is due no later than September 19, 2025. The motion will be set for submission on October 1, 2025. No other deadlines in the scheduling order are reset.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of August, 2025. derek Varner SARAH S.VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 R. Doc. 17.

Reese v. Royal Audio/Video Supply Company, Inc., (E.D. La. 2025).

Pincite

Reese v. Royal Audio/Video Supply Company, Inc. (Reese v. Royal Audio/Video Supply Company, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related