IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
August 2, 2007
PATRICK B. KOMESHAK, D.C. D/B/A KOMESHAK CHIROPRACTIC AND THOMAS L. KALTENBRONN, D.C., PLAINTIFFS,
RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge
Now before the Court is Defendant's motion to vacate order on motion to stay. (Doc. 50.) On July 23, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion entitled "Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Stay the Case or, in the Alternative, for Extensions of Time." (Doc. 47.) Plaintiffs informed the Court that the parties had agreed to settlement terms, but required more time to finalize the settlement of the case. Plaintiffs requested an order staying the case or, in the alternative, an extension of time to respond to three dispositive motions filed by Defendant. Plaintiffs represented that their motion was unopposed. Based on these representations, on July 24, 2007 the Court entered an Order, which declined to stay the matter but granted the requested extension of time. (Doc. 49.) Defendant then filed the present motion to vacate the July 24, 2007 Order, based on the fact that Defendant actually opposed Plaintiffs' motion to stay the case or, in the alternative, for extensions of time. (Doc. 50.)
Defendant opposed the motion on two grounds: 1) that it never agreed to produce any "confirmatory discovery" and 2) that it never agreed to a 60-day extension. Plaintiffs responded in opposition to the motion to vacate. (Doc. 51.) In the response, Plaintiffs concede that confirmatory discovery was not due from Defendant. In addition, Plaintiffs also concede that while Defendants agreed to an extension, Defendants did not explicitly agree to a 60-day extension.
The Court would caution Plaintiffs that is exceedingly unwise to make representations regarding another parties' non-opposition to a motion, unless the other party has explicitly agreed to the exact terms contained therein. That being said, however, the Court will not vacate the July 24, 2007 Order granting the extension but denying the stay. Therefore, Defendant's motion is DENIED. (Doc. 50.)
The Court expects the parties to proceed in good faith on the settlement issues. The Court wishes to stress to both parties, but particularly to Plaintiffs that the current deadlines are final. The Court will not grant any further extension, even if that means that Plaintiffs will be required to work on responses to Defendant's dispositive motions while simultaneously working on the settlement, in the event that the settlement is not consummated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David R. Herndon United States District Judge
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.