Verrett v. Dallas Independent School District, No. 3:2007cv00585 - Document 42 (N.D. Tex. 2008)
Court Description: Memorandum and Order Denying 41 MOTION to Amend/Correct 37 Memorandum Opinion and Order filed by Annitra Verrett. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 10/16/08) (svc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Verrett v. Dallas Independent School District Doc. 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ANNITRA VERRETT, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-00585-B MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Annitra Verrett’s FRCP 60 Motion (doc. 41) asking the Court to delete its “admonishment” of Counsel in the Memorandum Opinion filed September 3, 2008. Plaintifff’s response in opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was untimely filed, but, in the interest of justice, the Court considered Plaintiff’s response in making its ruling. Plaintiff argues its response was timely because, in part, “[a]ccording to FRCP 6, the Responding Party can add three days to any response.” However, Plaintiff misquotes the rule. Rule 6(e) applies to situations where “a party must or may act within a prescribed period after service.” See FED . R. CIV . PROC . 6(e)(emphasis added). Local Rule 7.1(e) provides that “[a] response and brief to an opposed motion must be filed within 20 days from the date the motion is filed.” N.D. Tex. Rule 7.1(e) (emphasis added). Rule 6 did not extend Plaintiff’s deadline to file a response to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. SO ORDERED. SIGNED October 16, 2008 _________________________________ JANE J. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
