Banks, Jr. v. Louisiana Marine Operators, LLC, No. 2:2016cv15645 - Document 23 (E.D. La. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 14 MOTION to Continue Trial and PreTrial Dates. IT IS ORDERED that the pretrial conference and the trial are hereby continued. A preliminary conference will be held by telephone on Thursday, August 17, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. for the purpose of scheduling a pre-trial conference and trial on the merits. The Court will initiate the telephone conference call and will be represented at the conference by its case manager. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery is closed, except as to the issue of plaintiff's medical condition and damages. The deadline for expert reports has passed and will not be reset. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 7/13/2017.(cg)

Download PDF

Banks, Jr. v. Louisiana Marine Operators, LLC Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA FREDDIE BANKS, J R. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 16-15645 LOUISIANA MARINE OPERATORS, LLC SECTION “R” (4) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is plaintiff’s m otion to continue trial. 1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D This case arises out of an accident on Defendant Louisiana Marine Operators, LLC’s vessel, the M/ V MAXX B. 2 Plaintiff Freddie Banks, J r. alleges that he was em ployed by defendant aboard the M/ V MAXX B when he suffered injuries after falling down the stairs. 3 On October 18, 20 16, plaintiff filed a seam an’s complaint for dam ages against defendant. 4 Plaintiff 1 2 3 4 R. Doc. 14. R. Doc. 1 at 2. Id. Id. at 1-6. Dockets.Justia.com alleges that defendant failed to provide to provide a reasonably safe place to work and engaged in other acts of negligence. 5 Plaintiff seeks m aintenance and cure for his injuries, dam ages, attorneys’ fees, costs, punitive dam ages, and other relief. 6 The Court entered a scheduling order in this case that established a discovery deadline of J uly 11, 20 17, and a trial date of August 21, 20 17. 7 Plaintiff now m oves to continue trial because his medical condition is uncertain. 8 Plaintiff states that he recently sought treatm ent from an orthopaedic surgeon, who advised plaintiff that he m ay need surgery on his shoulder. 9 II. D ISCU SSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule m ay be m odified 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 m et despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.” S & W Enterprises, L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank 5 6 7 8 9 Id. at 3. Id. at 5-6. R. Doc. 8 at 3. R. Doc. 14. R. Doc. 14-2 at 2. 2 of Ala., N A, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 20 0 3) (internal citations om itted). Whether to grant or deny a continuance is within the 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 “judgm ent range is exceedingly wide,” for it “m ust consider not only the facts of the particular case but also all of the dem ands on counsel’s tim e and the court’s.” Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 70 1, 736 (5th Cir. 20 0 0 ) (internal citations om itted). Trial in this m atter is currently scheduled for August 21, 20 17. 10 Neither party has previously requested a continuance in this m atter. Plaintiff argues that a continuance is necessary because it is not possible to enter into m eaningful settlem ent negotiations given plaintiff’s uncertain m edical condition. 11 Defendant opposes a continuance, but is willing to withdraw its opposition if the expert deadline is not reset. 12 Plaintiff states that he does not plan to call a liability expert and does not request an extension of the expert deadline. 13 The Court finds that plaintiff’s uncertain m edical condition constitutes good cause to justify the continuance of the trial. See Jones v. Phil Guilbeau 10 11 12 13 R. Doc. 8 at 3. R. Doc. 14-2 at 2. R. Doc. 16 at 2. R. Doc. 19. 3 Offshore, Inc., No. 13-50 78, 20 14 WL 4186784, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 22, 20 14); Augm an v. Seacor Marine, L.L.C., No. 0 7-150 8, 20 0 8 WL 8694786, at *3 (E.D. La. J une 23, 20 0 8). Accordingly, the Court will grant plaintiff’s m otion. The Court will not extend the deadline for expert reports. III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s m otion. IT IS ORDERED that the pretrial conference and the trial are hereby continued. A prelim inary conference will be held by telephone on Thursday, August 17, 20 17, at 11:0 0 a.m. for the purpose of scheduling a pre-trial conference and trial on the m erits. The Court will initiate the telephone conference call and will be represented at the conference by its case m anager. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery is closed, except as to the issue of plaintiff’s m edical condition and dam ages. The deadline for expert reports has passed and will not be reset. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _13th _ day of J uly, 20 17. ___ _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.