Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01366_de173> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 9 of
9
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01366_de173 RegisterActionDate "2019-06-03" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01366_de173 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 6/3/2019. On April 30, 2019, Defendants Baldwin, BE304FB, Lashbrook, 9F765EF and Melvin filed a motion requesting leave to late-file a motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. On May 14, 2019, the Court granted the motion directing the clerk to file the motion for partial summary judgment 123 . After the close of business that same day, Plaintiff filed an objection and motion to reconsider 124 , to which Defendants have responded 126 . Plaintiff objects to Defendants' filing, as having been made on the eve of the closure of discovery without a showing of excusable neglect. Plaintiff claims prejudice and, further, asserts that the late-filing operates as a waiver of the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust. Defendants deny any waiver, asserting that they pled the affirmative defense in their answer to the amended complaint and, again, in their amended answer. Defendants assert, further, that there is no prejudice to Plaintiff as the parties have mutually requested an extension of the discovery deadlines 122 . The Court notes, in fact, that on May 28, 2019, Magistrate Judge Hawley extended the closure of discovery to December 6, 2019 and set an April 6, 2020 trial date. The Court sees no prejudice, therefore, in allowing Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion to proceed. See United States v. Brown, 133 F.3d 993, 99697 (7th Cir. 1998) (late filing allowed where there was lack of prejudice even where the "reasons for the delay [were] not particularly compelling" and there was no evidence lack of good faith on the part of the movant. 124 is DENIED. Plaintiff has filed 135 , without objection from Defendants, requesting that he have an extension, until a time after the Court has ruled on his 124 objection, in which to respond to the exhaustion motion. As the Court has now ruled, Plaintiff will now have 21 days, pursuant to CDIL-LR 7.1(D)(2), in which to respond. 135 is GRANTED.(SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/03/2019)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01366_de173 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01366_de173 hasJudgeReference SJ001513 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01366_de173 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01366_de153 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01366_de173 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01366_de156 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01366_de173 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01366_de157 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01366_de173 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01366_de160 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01366_de173 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01366_de170 @default.