BLAKE v. MOORE, 4:16-cv-04078. (2017)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20170914811
Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 13, 2017
Summary: ORDER BARRY A. BRYANT , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Steven King's Motion to Extend Deadlines (ECF No. 25) and Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 26) On April 25, 2017, this Court entered an Amended Scheduling Order setting various deadlines for discovery completion, the filing of dispositive motions, motions to amend pleadings and join other parties. ECF No. 16. Defendant King was not named as a defendant until June 21, 2017 and he filed his answer on J
Summary: ORDER BARRY A. BRYANT , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Steven King's Motion to Extend Deadlines (ECF No. 25) and Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 26) On April 25, 2017, this Court entered an Amended Scheduling Order setting various deadlines for discovery completion, the filing of dispositive motions, motions to amend pleadings and join other parties. ECF No. 16. Defendant King was not named as a defendant until June 21, 2017 and he filed his answer on Ju..
More
ORDER
BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Steven King's Motion to Extend Deadlines (ECF No. 25) and Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 26)
On April 25, 2017, this Court entered an Amended Scheduling Order setting various deadlines for discovery completion, the filing of dispositive motions, motions to amend pleadings and join other parties. ECF No. 16. Defendant King was not named as a defendant until June 21, 2017 and he filed his answer on July 25, 2017. I find good cause is shown for an extension of certain deadlines in the Amended Scheduling Order, the request is not intended for the purpose of harassment or delay, and no party will be prejudiced by the extension. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Extend Deadlines (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. The extension of deadlines in the Amended Scheduling Order will be addressed by a separate Court order.
As to Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Southern Health Partners, Inc., Southern Health Partners, Inc. is not a party to this lawsuit. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 26) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
