Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Holder v. Healthcare Service Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

January 8, 2020

KERI HOLDER, Plaintiff,
v.
HEALTHCARE SERVICE CORPORATION D/B/A BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF TEXAS, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge

         Before the court is Plaintiff Kerri Holder's (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (“Motion”) (Doc. 12), filed October 18, 2019. After careful consideration of the Motion, response, the record, and applicable law, the court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (Doc. 12).

         I. Background

         This action was removed from the 192nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, to this court on October 11, 2018. The court entered its Scheduling Order (Doc. 7) on December 28, 2018, and no amendments have been made. On October 18, 2019-the deadline for all dispositive motions-Defendant Healthcare Service Corporation d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas (“Defendant”) filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10), upon which the court has not yet ruled. On the same day, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (Doc. 12).

         In her Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave of court to amend the current Scheduling Order (Doc. 7). In doing so, she seeks to amend all of the deadlines in the court's order and move the trial from the court's March 2, 2020 docket to its December 9, 2020 docket. Plaintiff contends that her request for leave to amend is not based on “oversight and a lack of due diligence” but, instead, is due to her “change of course, an extended period of time in setting mediation, and requisite research of a massive amount of insurance billing and physicians' billing.” Id. In support of her request, she provides the following timeline:

On, or about, December 20, 201[8], [1] Defendant approached Plaintiff with a proposed framework to resolve the claims asserted in the lawsuit.
During the next ninety days, the parties researched issues related [to] resolving the claims asserted in the lawsuit.
On April 11, 2019, counsel for Defendant presented its original settlement offer.
On May 1, 2019, counsel for Defendant proposed postponing the deadline for Rule 26 disclosures and to postpone the deadline for amending pleadings indefinitely and revise these deadlines on June 1, 2019 if the parties had not reached an agreement by that time.
By May 31, 2019, counsel for both parties were still trying to resolve the amount of attorneys' fees Defendant was willing to pay.
By July 1, 2019, counsel for both parties had still not reached a final agreement for resolving the case but were still diligently working toward a resolution of the case.
By mid-July 2019, it became apparent that Plaintiff would not resolve her claims within the settlement framework upon which the parties had been pursuing.
On July 18, 2019, counsel commenced trying to acquire a mediation date. No. mediation date could be obtained from a mediator to which bother parties agreed before October 2019.
On October 14, 2019, this matter was mediated by Mary Burdin which rendered no agreement ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.