United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
before the Court is Defendants' March 21, 2018 motion for
extension of time (Doc. 274). Specifically, defendants,
through new counsel who entered an appearance on March 21,
2018 (Doc. 273), move the Court to grant them an extension of
time of 30 days from the date of the motion for extension of
time to file an amended motion to alter judgment. Plaintiff
opposes the motion (Doc. 275). Based on the following, the
Court agrees with plaintiff's reasoning and denies the
summer, the Court held a three day bench trial. At the
conclusion of the bench trial, the Court directed the parties
to file written closing arguments (Doc. 246). On February 2,
2018, the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law (Doc. 265). On February 6, 2018, the Clerk of the
Court entered Judgment in favor of plaintiff and against
defendants (Doc. 266). On February 9, 2018, defendants filed
a motion to alter and/or amend the judgment (Doc. 268).
Plaintiff filed a response to the motion on February 14, 2018
(Doc. 269) and defendants filed a reply (Doc. 270). On March
20, 2018, after reviewing the reply, the Court struck the
reply because it did not state the exceptional circumstances
as to why the reply was needed (Doc. 272). On March 21, 2018,
attorney Courtney Cox, entered his appearance as defense
counsel (Doc. 273) and filed the motion for extension of time
(Doc. 274). A day later, plaintiff filed its opposition (Doc.
275). As the motion for extension of time is ripe, the Court
rules as follows.
motion for extension of time, defendants merely state:
“[f]ollowing the trial and decision in this matter,
Defendants contacted the undersigned for the purpose of
engaging him and his firm as counsel in this matter.”
The motion further states that during this time frame, Mr.
Cox's law firm merged with another law firm which has an
attorney, Douglas Churovich, that has expertise in litigating
trademark cases. Defendants contend that Mr. Churovich agreed
to assist in this matter and will be entering his appearance
but due to the merger and traveling, Mr. Churovich has been
unable to complete review of this case. Further, the
motion states that Mr. Cox “has reviewed the pending
Motion to Alter Judgment [Doc. 268] and determined that it is
necessary to file an Amended Motion to Alter Judgment in
order to fully present the issues and bases for such relief
to the Court.” Plaintiff opposes the motion arguing
that such motion is barred.
59(e) motion must be filed no later than 28 days from the
entry of the judgment. “This time limit is
unyielding.” Banks v. Chicago Board of
Education, 750 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2014)(citing
Justice v. Town of Cicero, 682 F.3d 662 (7th Cir.
2012). “Rule 7(b)(1) provides that ‘[a]n
application to the court for an order shall be made by motion
which … shall state with particularity the grounds
therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order
sought.' See FED.R.CIV.P. 7(b)(1). The standard
for ‘particularity' has been determined to mean
‘reasonable specification.' Martinez v.
Trainor, 556 F.2d 818, 819-20 (7th Cir. 1977)(finding
that defendant's Rule 59(e) motion ‘failed to state
even one ground for granting the motion and thus failed to
meet the minimal standard of ‘reasonable
specification'”). Talono v. Northwestern
Medical Faculty Foundation, Inc., 273 F.3d 757, 760 (7th
Cir. 2001). “If a party could file a skeleton motion
and later fill it in, the purpose of the time limitation
would be defeated.” Id. at 761 (quoting
Martinez, 556 F.2d at 820); see also Lac Du
Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wis.,
957 F.2d 515, 516-517 (7th Cir. 1992)(“An empty motion
cannot reserve time to file an explanation after the …
allowed by Rule 59.”). “[A] district court may
not extend the time within a party may move to alter
or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e).” Id.
(quoting Hope v. United States, 43 F.3d 1140, 1143
(7th Cir. 1994)); see also Riley v. Northwestern Bell
Tel. Co., 1 F.3d 725, 726-27 (8th Cir. 1993)(finding
that a timely, but not particularized, Rule 59(e) motion
cannot be save by a subsequent, untimely memorandum that
attempts to supply the missing particularity).
defendants' motion for extension of time cites no rule,
statute or case law that entitles them to the relief they
seek. Clearly, the motion is inadequate as it is untimely and
it does not state with particularity the issues defendants
intend to pursue.
the Court DENIES the motion for extension of time (Doc. 274).
As of this date, Mr. Churovich has not
entered an ...