Lambright v. New Age Dome Construction, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
James Lambright, 	Case No. 3:21-cv-865
Plaintiff,
v. 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
New Age Dome Construction, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Defendants New Age Dome Construction, LLC, and John Johnson, New Age’s sole
member filed a motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment, seeking to argue
Plaintiff James Lambright lacks “valid Consumer Sales Protection Act actual damages claims.”
(Doc. No. 63 at 1). Lambright opposed the motion, (Doc. No. 64), and Defendants filed a brief in
reply. (Doc. No. 65). For the reasons stated below, I deny the motion.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Under Rule 16(b), a district court must issue a scheduling order limiting, among other things,
the time to file motions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). The scheduling order “may be modified only
for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). In determining whether
good cause exists to modify a scheduling order, a court should consider “the diligence of the party
seeking the extension” and “whether the opposing party will suffer prejudice by virtue of the
amendment.” Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 906 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281
F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002)).
Case: 3:21-cv-00865-JJH Doc #: 66 Filed: 01/02/26 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
On October 31, 2023, I held a telephone status conference with counsel for the parties.
After discussing the matter with counsel, I subsequently entered an order setting a dispositive
motion deadline of January 19, 2024. (Doc. No. 44). The parties then filed cross motions for
summary judgment on that date. (Doc. Nos. 45, 46, 47, and 49). I granted Defendant Daniel
Johnson’s motion for summary judgment on all Counts alleged against him, and I granted in part
and denied in part New Age’s motion, John Johnson’s motion, and Lambright’s motion. (Doc. No.
54).
Defendants now assert they should be granted leave to file a second motion for summary
judgment because Lambright “continues to use the ‘x3’ multiplier to set up an actual damages claim”
under the Ohio Consumer Sales Protection Act. (Doc. No. 65 at 2). But they do not explain why
they failed to raise this argument in their first summary judgment motions, much less demonstrate
they acted with diligence in seeking to extend a deadline that passed nearly two years ago. (See Doc.
Nos. 45 and 46).
Indeed, Defendants’ use of the word “continues” confirms there is no good cause to extend
the dispositive motion deadline. Lambright has sought to recover actual damages under the Ohio
Consumer Sales Protection Act from the very beginning of this case. (See Doc. No. 1 at 21)
(requesting a judgment ordering Defendants to pay Lambright’s “actual economic damages”). I
conclude Defendants fail to show they should be permitted to file a second summary judgment
motion.
Case: 3:21-cv-00865-JJH Doc #: 66 Filed: 01/02/26 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, I deny the motion of Defendants New Age Dome
Construction, LLC, and John Johnson for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment.
(Doc. No. 63).
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
Case: 3:21-cv-00865-JJH Doc #: 66 Filed: 01/02/26 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>