Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:19-cv-07948_de67> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-07948_de67 RegisterActionDate "2020-07-15" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-07948_de67 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file a motion to strike certain affirmative defenses 55 . Plaintiff does not dispute that his motion is untimely: the deadline for filing a motion to strike affirmative defenses elapsed on January 31, 2020, yet Plaintiff did not file a motion to extend that deadline until April 14, 2020. Plaintiff nonetheless argues that his failure to meet the deadline should be excused because he failed to meet the deadline due to ongoing settlement negotiations between the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) (a court may extend a deadline after it has expired "if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect"); Hassebrock v. Bernhoft, 815 F.3d 334, 341 (7th Cir. 2016) ("Rule 6 provides that when a request for extension of time is made after an expired deadline, 'the court may, for good cause, extend the time... if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect' "). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, the most important factor in assessing whether excusable neglect exists is "the reason for the delay"; if the moving party fails to demonstrate "genuine ambiguity or confusion about the scope or application of the rules or some other good reason for missing the deadline," the party cannot establish excusable neglect regardless of the length or delay whether the other party would suffer prejudice. Satkar Hospitality, Inc. v. Fox Television Holdings, 767 F.3d 701, 707 (7th Cir. 2014). With due respect to Plaintiff, the Court does not believe that the purported settlement negotiations between the parties provides a sufficient justification for Plaintiff's failure to file a timely motion to strike. Nothing precluded Plaintiff from filing the motion to strike (or seeking an extension) before the applicable deadline, and it does not follow, either generally or in this case, that settlement negotiations preclude the concurrent litigation of a case. Cf. Cohen v. Hoyer, 32 F. App'x 755, 761 (7th Cir. 2002) (nonprecedential disposition) (in affirming denial of FRCP 60(b) motion, explaining that settlement negotiations did not constitute "excusable neglect"). Deadlines set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be treated with greater regard than has been shown here. As a result, because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate excusable neglect, the motion to extend 55 is denied. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 07/15/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-07948_de67 AdministrativeID "66" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-07948_de67 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-07948_de56 @default.