Andrews v. Woody et al, No. 3:2017cv00167 - Document 92 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 05/31/2018. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Andrews v. Woody et al Doc. 92 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division BENJAMIN M. ANDREWS, Administrator ofthe estate ofZachary Tuggle, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:17cvl67 SHERIFF C.T. WOODY, et ai. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Naphcare, Inc., Demetrice Smith, Tracy Turner, Gwen Drake, Cecelia Faison, and Khairul Emran's (collectively, "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment,* filed pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 56? (ECF ^The day after filing their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants filed a Motion to Consider Timely Filed Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Motion to Consider Timely"). (ECF No. 77.) The Court already had granted several motions for extensions oftime to file briefing. (See, e.g., ECF No. 62 (granting Defendants' motion to extend deadline for submitting dispositive motions after the dispositive motions deadline had already passed and sua sponte continuing the trial date because of the proposed extension); ECF No. 66 (granting a joint motion to again extend deadlines for parties to submit dispositive motions).) Defendants stated in the Motion to Consider Timely that, although the Court had ordered the parties to file any dispositive motions by close of business April 9, 2018, Defendants experienced computer problems, resulting in Defendants filing their Motion for Summary Judgment at 5:29 p.m. on April 9,2018. Defendants ask that the Court accept their Motion for Summary Judgment as timely filed. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), the Court may extend time to file "on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Courts generally consider "the danger of prejudice to the [non-movant], the length of tiie delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control ofthe movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith." Tobey v. Keiter, Stephens, Hurst, Gary & Shreaves, No. 3:13cv315, 2014 WL 61325, at *4 (E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Thompson v. E.L DuPont de Nemours & Co., 16 F.3d 530, 533 (4th Cir. 1996)). Finding that excusable neglect exists for Defendants' failure to timely file their Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court will grant the Motion to Consider Timely. 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.
