United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana, 2025

Dwayne Anthony Cook v. Christopher Hudson and Ingram Industries, Inc.

Dwayne Anthony Cook v. Christopher Hudson and Ingram Industries, Inc.
United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana · Decided November 14, 2025
Dwayne Anthony Cook v. Christopher Hudson and Ingram Industries, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DWAYNE ANTHONY COOK CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 24-2916 CHRISTOPHER HUDSON AND SECTION “R” INGRAM INDUSTRIES, INC. ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court are two motions from plaintiff Dwayne Anthony Cook to continue trial and all pre-trial deadlines.1 Defendants oppose both motions.2 The Court denies the motions to continue.

Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause standard requires the party seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably 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 R. Docs. 31, 32.

2 R. Doc. 33. 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 Court denies the motions to continue. The alleged accident occurred in August 2024. Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to conduct discovery and meet the Court’s deadlines, which were set in February 2025.

That plaintiffs new counsel failed to enroll for five months is not good cause for a continuance and does not show any diligence. See S&W Enters., L.L.C., 315 F.3d at 535. The Court finds that the plaintiff has not established good cause to amend the scheduling order.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion to continue trial and all pre-trial deadlines.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this_14th day of November, 2025.

Arwk Varvt1e.

SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.