Sae Han Sheet Co., Ltd. v. Eastman Performance Films, LLC, No. 4:2018cv00074 - Document 74 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 9/24/19. (ham)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
q'Ns F , GLERK' S OFFIGE U.S.Dl:m cOUr AT DANVILLE,VA FILED IN THE UN ITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT FO R THE W ESTERN DISTM CT OF V IR GFN IA DA N V ILLE D IV ISION SEP 2i 2219 J BY uL lI A kcet.nrrvcL LexRcl zjx : SAE HAN SHEET CO .,LTD ., ) ) Plaintiffl ) ) ) ) COM M ONW EM TH LAMINATING AND ) COATING,lNC.,eta1., ) ) Defendants. ) CaseN o.4:18cv00074 M E M O R AN D U M O PIN IO N By:Hon.Jackson L.Kiser SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge This m atter is before the Courton DefendantEastman Perform ance Film s'M otion to Dismiss.lLECF No.42.jThe motion was submitted on briefwithoutoralargllment.Ihave reviewed the pleadings,arguments,and relevantlaw.Forthe reasons stated herein,Iwillgrant theM otion to Dism issanddism issthiscase. Plaintiff Sae Han SheetCo.,Ltd.(çtplaintiff')isa South Korean company engaged in intemationalkade.DefendantEastmanPerformanceFilmstifastmarf'listheultimatesuccessor to Comm onwea1th Lam inating and Coating,a Virginia company which m ay have manufactured some or a1l the goods at issue in this case.The relevant factual allegations are relatively tmchangedfrom myprioropinion.(SeeM em.Op.pgs.1-3,Apr.11,2019 (ECFNo.342.) Asrelevantto the presentm otion,theLocalRulesofthiscourtprovide forfourteen days foraresponseto anymotion.SeeLocalCiv.R.14(c)(1).M oreover,thePretrialOrderissuedin Sae Han Sheet Co., Ltd. v. Eastman Performance Films, LLC Doc. 74 this case states' . 1A lthough Eastm an Performance Film s was not technically a party to the cited motion to dism iss, it joined in thatmotion in itsentirety.(SeeMot.to Dismisspg.2,May 31,2019 EECF No.452.)By agreem entbetween the parties,the dism issed parties'M otion to Dism iss remained pending forEastm an PerformanceFilms.(SeeOrder!3,Sept.10,2019 EECFNo.71j.) Dockets.Justia.com ' $*-N e Briefsin opposition m ustbefled within 14 daysofthe date ofthe serviceofthemovant'sbrief(orwithin 14 daysofthisOrderisa motion andbriefhavebeen servedpriorto thisOrder).EXCEPT FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOW N IF BRIEFS IN OPPOSITION T O TH E M O TIO N S ARE N OT FILED , IT W ILL BE D EEM ED TH A T TH E M O TIO N IS W ELL TAK EN . (Order! 4,Jan.4,2019 (ECF No.24j.)The quoted languagefrom thePretrialOrderwasalso directly referenced in my prioropinion on a motion to dismiss.(M em.Op.pg.3 n.3,Apr.11, 2019 EECFNo.342.) The presentM otion to Dismisszwasfiled on M ay 13, 2019 EECF No.42j;Plaintiffdid notfilearesponsein opposition untilJlme 3 (ECF No.481.Plaintiff'sresponse,therefore,was filed twenty-one days after the initialm otion and in plain violation of the LocalRules and PretrialOrder.Atno pointdid Plaintiffseek leaveto file alateresponse and,to date,ithasfailed toofferanyjustificationwhatsoeverforitslateresponse. A courthasthe authority to dism issan action ifapartyviolatesthecourt'sordersorlocal nzles.See,e.g.,C.H .v.Asheville City Bd.ofEduc.,No.1:12-CV-000377,2014 W L 1092290,at #1(W .D.N.C.M ay 18,2014).Ordinarily,Iwould notgrantamotion todismissmerelybecause aparty responded seven dayspastthe time setforth in theLocalRulesand thePretrialOrder.ln thepresentcase,however,Plaintiffw asserved with thePretrialOrderand expressly warned in a prior opinion thatlate filingsw ere notpermitted withoutthe express approvalofthe court.In contravention ofthatwarning,Plaintiffagain filed a lateresponseto aM otion to Dism iss.W hen corlfrontedwithDefendant'sresponseinwhichthetimelinessissuewasraised(seeECF No.50q, Plaintiff failed to seek leave of the courtto accept its late response and failed to offer any justificationforitsimproperfiling. 2Although Eastman wasnotapartytothatM otion,itfileditsown M otionto Dismisson M ay 31.(ECF No.45.)By agreementofthe parties,however,Eastman's M otion to Dismiss was supplanted by the previously filed M otion to Dism iss.Accordingly,and w ith the consentofPlaintiff,the earlierM otion to DismissistLeoperativeoneatthispoint. ' i CtW hen an actm ay or mustbe done within a specified tim e,the courtmay,for good cause,extend the tim e ...on motion m ade after tim e has expired if the party failed to act becauseofexcusableneglect.''Fed.R.Civ.P.6(b)(1)(B).M orethanthreemonthsafterthefact, Plaintiffhasfailed to file am otion asking the courtto extend thetim ein which itwaspennitted to file its response,and ithas failed to offer any justification to show that itsneglectwas excusable.Considering the totality ofthe circum stancesand PlaintiY sfailure to seek leave for itsactionsorofferanyjustiscation whatsoever,Defendant'sM otion toDismisswillbedeemed well-taken,theM otion willbegranted,and Plaintiffscomplaintwillbe dism issed. Theclerk isdirected toforward a copy ofthisOrderto al1cotmselofrecord. ENTERED this day ofSeptember,2019. .* ë EN1 R UNIT/D STAT SDISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
