Cambre v. Smith et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JIM C. CAMBRE 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 18-6509
RANDY SMITH, ET AL. 	SECTION: D (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Continue Submission Date of Defendants’
Motion for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiff Jim. C. Cambre.1 Defendants oppose the
Motion.2 After a careful review of the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the
applicable law, the Motion is GRANTED.
I. 	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Counsel for all parties attended a telephone status conference with the Court
on 	September 5, 2025.3 In 	the 	conference, 	the 	parties 	discussed whether the
Plaintiff’s state law claim for battery survived after the Fifth Circuit revised its
Mandate in the case.4 In the conference, counsel for the Defendants advised that they
planned to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order and Reasons5
regarding the survival of the state law battery claim. In the minute entry for the
conference, 	the 	Court 	set 	out 	deadlines 	for 	this 	Motion: 	“The 	motion 	for
Reconsideration will have a submission date of October 14, 2025, with the motion
1 R. Doc. 140.
2 R. Doc. 144.
3 R. Doc. 137.
4 Id.
5 R. Doc. 123.
Case 2:18-cv-06509-WBV-EJD Document 149 Filed 10/27/25 Page 1 of 5

2
filed by September 30, 2025, any response filed by October 6, 2025, and any reply
filed by October 10, 2025.”6
Defendants timely filed the Motion for Reconsideration on Tuesday, September
30, 2025.7 When the Motion for Reconsideration was filed, the Clerk’s Office provided
a submission date of October 28, 2025. The Court subsequently advised the Clerk’s
Office that it had ordered a submission date of October 14, 2025, and the Clerk’s
Office then changed the submission date to October 14, 2025.8
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on October 10, 2025, requesting that the
Court continue the submission date of Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.9
Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration was untimely pursuant
to the Court’s order contained in the minute entry which mistakenly reference
Monday, September 30, 2025 when, in fact, September 30, 2025 was on a Tuesday.
Plaintiff also contends that he did not receive notice from the Court when the
submission date of the Motion for Reconsideration was corrected.10 Defendants
respond that Plaintiff failed to adhere to the Court’s order regarding the submission
date for the Motion for Reconsideration and that Defendants’ Motion was filed in
accordance with the agreed-upon deadlines in the telephone status conference.11
6 R. Doc. 137 at p. 2.
7 R. Doc. 138.
8 Id.
9 R. Doc. 140. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Expedite the Motion to Continue Submission Date, which
the Court granted (R. Doc. 143).
10 R. Docs. 140, 140-1.
11 R. Doc. 144.
Case 2:18-cv-06509-WBV-EJD Document 149 Filed 10/27/25 Page 2 of 5

3
In the intervening time period, on October 20, 2025, Plaintiff has filed his
Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.12 And Defendant
has filed a Reply.13
II. 	LAW AND ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 governs the extension of deadlines imposed
by a Court’s Local Rules.14 	Under Rule 6(b), a court may, for good cause, extend a
deadline before or after the expiration of the deadline.15 District courts have broad
discretion in granting an extension under Rule 6, but an extension of time under Rule
6(b)(1)(B) will only be granted “where the party's failure to act in a timely fashion
was the result of ‘excusable neglect.’”16 An evaluation of excusable neglect must take
“into account all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission,” including
length of delay, the potential impact of said delay on proceedings, the reason for delay,
and whether the movant has acted in good faith.17
Here, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s failure to act in a timely fashion was
the result of excusable neglect. The Order in the Minute Entry from the Telephone
Status Conference does ascribe the incorrect day of the week to the calendar date,
which may have caused counsel for the Plaintiff some confusion. Plaintiff further
claims that he had no notice of the clerk’s correction to agreed-to submission date.
12 R. Doc. 146.
13 R. Doc. 147.
14 FED. R. C IV. P. 6(a)-(b).
15 FED. R. C IV. P. 6(b)(1).
16 FED. R. C IV. P. 6(b)(1)(B); § 1165 Extending Time—In General, 4B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1165
(4th ed.).
17 Midwest Emps. Cas. Co. v. Williams, 161 F.3d 877, 881 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs.
Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 1498, 123 L.Ed.2d 74, 89
(1993)).
Case 2:18-cv-06509-WBV-EJD Document 149 Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 5

4
While counsel for the Plaintiff should have had notice from the telephone status
conference which he attended that the submission date was October 14, 2025, the
Court finds the confusion excusable. Further, the Court has confirmed with the
Clerk’s Office that notice of the change of submission date was not automatically
provided to counsel. Additionally, the length of the delay is not very long, considering
Plaintiff has filed his Response to the Motion for Reconsideration in the intervening
period and Defendants have filed a Reply.18 Furthermore, the motion to continue
submission date concerns a Motion for Reconsideration that, if granted, would result
in 	the 	dismissal 	of 	the 	sole 	remaining claim 	in 	Plaintiff’s 	Complaint 	against
Defendants. Because the Motion for Reconsideration is such a consequential motion
and because of Plaintiff’s confusion regarding the submission date and intervening
deadlines, the Court finds that the relevant circumstances surrounding the failure to
file a Response point to excusable neglect.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and finding good cause,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion19 is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s
Response Memorandum in Opposition20 and Defendant’s Reply Memorandum21 are
deemed timely filed.
18 R. Doc. 146 and 147, respectively.
19 R. Doc. 140.
20 R. Doc. 146.
21 R. Doc. 147.
Case 2:18-cv-06509-WBV-EJD Document 149 Filed 10/27/25 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration22 is now
submitted.
New Orleans, Louisiana, October 27, 2025.
______________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
22 R. Doc. 138.
Case 2:18-cv-06509-WBV-EJD Document 149 Filed 10/27/25 Page 5 of 5