Mac Metal Sales, Inc. v. Ingram Barge Co., LLC, ET AL.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MAC METAL SALES, INC. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 25-422 INGRAM BARGE CO., LLC, ET AL. SECTION “R” (4)

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is defendant Mid-Ship Logistics, LLC’s (Mid-Ship) unopposed motion for extension of time1 to respond to defendant Ingram Barge Company, LLC’s (Ingram) cross-claim against Mid-Ship2 and Mid- Ship’s consent motion3 to continue to the submission deadline of plaintiff Mac Metal Sales, Inc.’s (Mac Metal) motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.4 The Court has already granted one extension of time for Mid-Ship to respond to Ingram’s cross-claim under Local Rule 7.8. Extensions beyond the initial 21-days may be granted “upon motion and order of the court for good cause shown.” E.D. La. Local Rule 7.8. The “good cause standard requires the party seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably

1 R. Doc. 67.

2 R. Doc. 51.

3 R. Doc. 66.

4 R. Doc. 61. be met despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.” S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up).

Whether to grant or deny a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 1996). In deciding whether to grant a continuance, the Court’s “judgment range is exceedingly wide, for . . . [it] must consider not only the facts of the particular case but also all of the demands on counsel’s time and the court’s.”

Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 736 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting HC Gun & Knife Shows, Inc. v. City of Houston, 201 F.3d 544, 549-50 (5th Cir. 2000) (cleaned up)).

The parties assert that the upcoming scheduled commercial settlement meeting is good cause for the extension and the continuance of the submission deadline.5 The Court finds to the contrary, as the scheduled meeting does not preclude Mid-Ship from meeting reasonable pleading deadlines. Further, should the commercial mediation fail, a continuance would needlessly extend this litigation. Mid-Ship has not established good cause for the extension or the continuance.

5 R. Docs. 66, 67.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion for extension of time and the motion to continue the submission deadline.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of November, 2025.

dork Va1n402_ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE