Wright v. OGE Energy Corp

W.D. Oklahoma

Wright v. OGE Energy Corp

DecidedDecember 9, 2024

Docket5:23-cv-00864

StatusUnknown

This text of Wright v. OGE Energy Corp (Wright v. OGE Energy Corp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wright v. OGE Energy Corp, (W.D. Okla. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

DEBRA WRIGHT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) -vs- ) Case No. CIV-23-864-F ) OGE ENERGY CORP., ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER The court is in receipt of Defendant’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. Doc. no. 84. Under Rule 16(b)(3)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P., the court must enter a scheduling order that limits the time to file motions. The court has done so, and the time prescribed for filing dispositive motions has passed. Rule 16(b)(4), Fed. R. Civ. P., states that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” While Rule 12(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., allows a motion for judgment on the pleadings to be filed “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial,” it “does not restrict the court’s discretion under Rule 16(b).” Riggins v. Walter, 279 F.3d 422, 427 (7th Cir. 1995); see also, Hughes v. Z, Inc., CIV-04-980- C, 2006 WL 290576, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 6, 2006) (quoting Riggins). Thus, a Rule 12(c) motion may be brought after the dispositive motions deadline if the moving party complies with the requirements of Rule 16(b)(4) and if it will not delay trial. Riggins, 279 F.3d at 428. Because Rule 16(b)(4) applies to defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion and defendant has not made a showing of good cause, relying solely on the language of Rule 12(c), the court, exercising in its discretion, GRANTS defendant until noon on December 11, 2024 to file a motion for nunc pro tunc leave to file the Rule 12(c) motion out of time, supported by a showing of good cause. Failure of defendant to comply will result in the court’s striking of the Rule 12(c) motion, with no further notice to defendant. If defendant complies and files a motion for nunc pro tunc leave, plaintiff shall file any response on or before noon on December 18, 2024. No reply by defendant will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the court. Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (doc. no. 84) is STAYED pending further order of the court. DATED this 9th day of December, 2024.

Ab prt UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23-0864p023.docx

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

DEBRA WRIGHT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) -vs- ) Case No. CIV-23-864-F ) OGE ENERGY CORP., ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER The court is in receipt of Defendant’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. Doc. no. 84. Under Rule 16(b)(3)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P., the court must enter a scheduling order that limits the time to file motions. The court has done so, and the time prescribed for filing dispositive motions has passed. Rule 16(b)(4), Fed. R. Civ. P., states that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” While Rule 12(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., allows a motion for judgment on the pleadings to be filed “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial,” it “does not restrict the court’s discretion under Rule 16(b).” Riggins v. Walter, 279 F.3d 422, 427 (7th Cir. 1995); see also, Hughes v. Z, Inc., CIV-04-980- C, 2006 WL 290576, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 6, 2006) (quoting Riggins). Thus, a Rule 12(c) motion may be brought after the dispositive motions deadline if the moving party complies with the requirements of Rule 16(b)(4) and if it will not delay trial. Riggins, 279 F.3d at 428. Because Rule 16(b)(4) applies to defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion and defendant has not made a showing of good cause, relying solely on the language of Rule 12(c), the court, exercising in its discretion, GRANTS defendant until noon on December 11, 2024 to file a motion for nunc pro tunc leave to file the Rule 12(c) motion out of time, supported by a showing of good cause. Failure of defendant to comply will result in the court’s striking of the Rule 12(c) motion, with no further notice to defendant. If defendant complies and files a motion for nunc pro tunc leave, plaintiff shall file any response on or before noon on December 18, 2024. No reply by defendant will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the court. Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (doc. no. 84) is STAYED pending further order of the court. DATED this 9th day of December, 2024.

Ab prt UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23-0864p023.docx

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wright v. OGE Energy Corp, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-oge-energy-corp-okwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack