Michael Lusk v. The City of Memphis, Wal Mart Stores East, LP, Wal Mart Inc.,...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION MICHAEL LUSK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE CITY OF MEMPHIS, WAL MART ) STORES EAST, LP, WAL MART INC., ) No. 2:26-cv-02304-SHL-atc WAL MART ASSOCIATES, WALMART ) STORE #5122, DARRELL MATHIS, ) individually and in his official capacity as a ) City of Memphis law enforcement officer, and ) RASHAD ROSS, individually and in his ) official capacity as a City of Memphis law ) enforcement officer, ) Defendants. ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CITY OF MEMPHIS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendant City of Memphis (“the City”) seeks an extension of time to file an answer or response to the Plaintiff Michael Lusk’s Complaint up to and including June 5, 2026. (ECF No. 12.) It remains unclear when any Defendants must respond under Federal Rule 12, because no return of service has been filed on the docket. Regardless, the City’s counsel filed a notice of appearance and the instant Motion on May 8, 2026.

A court may only exercise its discretion to extend a deadline to answer or respond to a complaint for “good cause” shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Good cause is shown by a party’s diligence in attempting to meet the deadlines, lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party, and consideration of the length or number of extensions requested. Reed v. Tipton County, No. 25- cv-02851, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 254597, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 9, 2025) (citing Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002)).

In support of the Motion, the City asserts that an extension would give it “sufficient time to prepare its response” and investigate the “allegations set forth in” the Complaint. (ECF No. at PageID 63.) The City also relies on the fact that Walmart Defendants obtained an extension on May 6. (Id.) Plaintiff Lusk does not oppose the Motion.

The City has shown good cause for the requested extension. Lusk does not oppose the Motion, so there is no risk of prejudice to him. It appears that there is little risk of prejudice to the other named Defendants, as Walmart Defendants obtained an extension and the two remaining individuals are alleged to be Memphis Police Department employees. In addition, this is the City’s first extension request. For good cause shown, the Motion is GRANTED. The City shall have until June 5, 2026, to answer or respond to the Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 11th day of May, 2026. s/ Sheryl H. Lipman SHERYL H. LIPMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE