Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. Conreal LLC et al, No. 1:2009cv00470 - Document 226 (D.R.I. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER denying 220 Motion for Leave to File Motion, Instanter; and TEXT ORDER finding as moot 225 Motion to Strike. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 7/12/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. Conreal LLC et al Doc. 226 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ___________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) JOSEPH CARAMADRE; RAYMOUR ) RADHAKRISHNAN; ESTATE PLANNING ) RESOURCES, INC.; ADM ASSOCIATES, ) LLC; HARRISON CONDIT; EDWARD ) MAGGIACOMO, JR.; and FORTUNE ) FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________) TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE CO. OF OHIO, C.A. No. 09-470 S ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge. Before the Court is a Motion for Leave to File Motion, Instanter (“Motion”), filed by Defendant ADM Associates, LLC (“ADM”), requesting “leave to submit its memorandum of law in support of its opposition to Plaintiffs[’] motion for partial summary judgment in the above-referenced matter today [June 16, 2016].” Motion. (ECF No. 220.) (ECF No. 223.) Plaintiffs filed an Objection to ADM’s For the reasons that follow, ADM’s Motion is DENIED. On March 17, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 212.) Responses were due April 4, Dockets.Justia.com 2016. On April 6, 2016, Defendants ADM and Joseph Caramadre filed a Joint Motion for [30] Day Enlargement of Scheduling Order. No. 215.) (ECF The Court granted this motion and gave Defendants until May 15 to file a response to Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. (04/14/2016 Text Order.) On May 31, 2016, the Court received a letter from Plaintiffs (attached to this Order as Exhibit 1), noting that Defendants had again missed the deadline to file their response and requesting that the Court “consider ruling on the summary judgment motion based on the papers that have been filed to date.” (Ex. 1 at 1.) On June 2 – over two weeks after their response was due – Defendants ADM and Caramadre filed a Motion for Final Enlargement of Time to Submit Their Responses to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 218.) They represented to the Court that “[t]he responses are nearly complete, and the Defendants will not require any further enlargement of time in this case.” at 1.) (Id. The Court granted Defendants’ motion and gave Defendants until June 15 to file their response, but specifically indicated that “no further extensions will be granted.” Order (emphasis in original).) (06/08/2015 Text Defendants again failed to meet the deadline and ADM filed this Motion on June 16. The only explanation given was “that due to an exceptionally large caseload, and the incarceration of Defendant Caramadre, additional time was 2 required to file ADM Associates, LLC’s memorandum of law.” Mot. 1, ECF No. 220.) (ADM’s ADM then filed its Objection to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 221.) Defendants have missed the filing deadline for their response three times. Both previous requests for extension were filed after the due date for Defendants’ response and failed to adequately explain the dilatory behavior; the Court nevertheless extended the deadline in an effort to accommodate Defendants and their new counsel – but the Court warned that no further extensions would be granted. The Court meant what it said. “[E]nough is enough.” Mills v. Maine, 118 F.3d 37, 54 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting Sarnoff v. American Home Prods. Corp., 798 F.2d 1075, 1079 (7th Cir. 1986)). ADM’s counsel’s caseload and Mr. Caramadre’s incarceration were both issues that Defendants were aware of when they represented in their June 2 motion that they would “not require any further enlargement of time in this case.” Final Enlargement of Time 1, ECF No. 218.) (Mot. for There is no excuse for Defendants’ repeated failure to comply with the scheduling orders in this case, particularly given the Court’s statement that no further extensions would be granted, not to mention the fact that Defendant Caramadre is himself an attorney. 3 Accordingly, the Motion (ECF No. 220) is hereby DENIED and the Court will disregard ADM’s Objection to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 221). IT IS SO ORDERED. William E. Smith Chief Judge Date: July 12, 2016 4 EXHIBIT 1
]]>
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.
