Everest Reinsurance Company v. Cox Oil LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
EVEREST REINSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRADLEY COX, COX OIL LLC, and
COX INVESTMENT PARTNERS LP,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-0756-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Bradley Cox’s motion to vacate or extend time.
(Doc. 208). The Court GRANTS this motion, VACATES its prior order setting
response and reply deadlines (Doc. 207), and sets the following new deadlines: Cox
SHALL respond by no later than 5:00 pm on October 23, 2026, and Everest may reply
by no later than 5:00 pm on October 30, 2026.
Everest argues that handling the contempt motion on an expedited basis is
appropriate here.1 The Court agrees. The Court ordered Cox to “post collateral
equivalent to Everest’s reserves of $27,800,000 to the account designated by Everest
within 3 days of this Order.” (Doc. 204). More than three days have passed since
Everest designated its account, but Cox has not posted collateral.2 So Cox has not
1 Cox represents that he plans to file a motion to strike Everest’s contempt motion based on
local rules violation. See Doc. 208 at 3 n.1. The Court will not strike Everest’s contempt motion for a
local rules violation here. Everest did not need to confer with Cox because Cox would obviously oppose
the contempt motion. See L.R. 7.1(h). And the Court will not strike a motion for a party’s failure to
submit a proposed order or file a separate brief (where required).
2 See Doc. 206 at 1.
Case 3:24-cv-00756-X Document 214 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
complied with the Court’s Order (consistent with his delays throughout this case).
Nevertheless, a short time extension is proper. Gathering documentary
evidence, preparing declarations, and writing responses takes time,3 and no final,
appealable judgment is in place.4 If imposed, civil contempt can be a severe remedy.5
So in its discretion, the Court GRANTS Cox’s extension request to give him
additional time to prepare his response.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of October, 2026.
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 See Doc. 208 at 8.
4 Everest could have made the Court’s judgment final and appealable the day the Court issued
its summary judgment Order, but it chose not to do so. See Docs. 203 at 7; 204 at 2.
5 See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 828 (1994); see also
Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. LM Carpet Cleaning Resurfacing & Power Washing, No. 3:22-CV-0079-X,
2025 WL 910485, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2025).
Case 3:24-cv-00756-X Document 214 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>