Wolf v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company et al

U n i t e d 	S t a t e s 	D i s t r i c t 	C o u r t
N O R T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F T E X A S
D A L L A S D I V I S I O N
WILLIAM 	WOLF, 	Individually 	and 	as 	§
the Administrator of the Estate of Mark §
D . 	W o l f 	§
§
v . 	§ 	C I V I L 	A C T I O N 	N O . 	3 : 2 5 - C 	V - 0 3 9 5 - S - B K
§
C A M B R I D G E 	M U T U A L 	F I R E 	§
INSURANCE 	COMPANY 	AND 	COM- 	§
C O 	I N S U R A N C E 	A G E N C Y, 	I N C . 	§
O R D E R 	A C C E P T I N G 	F I N D I N G S , 	C O N C L U S I O N S , 	A N D 	R E C O M M E N D AT I O N
O F 	T H E 	U N I T E D 	S T A T E S 	M A G I S T R A T E 	J U D G E
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in
this case. Plaintiffs' objection deadline originally was March 10, 2026. On the day of the deadline,
Plaintiffs sought a 14-day extension, and the Court granted that request. See ECF Nos. 36-37. After
the extension, Plaintiffs' objection deadline was March 24, 2026. Again, Plaintiffs moved to
extend the deadline on the date objections were due. In their Unopposed Motion for Extension of
Time to File Written Objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation ofthe United
States Magistrate Judge ("Motion to Extend") [ECF No. 38], Plaintiffs seek an additional seven
days to file written objections. Mot. to Extend 2. The stated reason for the extension-that
Plaintiffs 	need 	"adequate 	time" 	to 	review 	and 	object 	to 	the 	findings, 	conclusions, 	and
recommendation-is identical to the reason given for the previous extension. Id. at 2. The Court
concludes that Plaintiffs have not established good cause for a second extension and DENIES the
M o t i o n .
Because no objections were timely filed, the Court reviewed the proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation ofthe United States Magistrate Judge.
Case 3:25-cv-00395-S-BK Document 39 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all claims against
Defendant Corn-Co Insurance Agency, Inc. Because the remaining parties are completely diverse,
the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Remand [ECF No. 29] and GRANTS IN PART
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 8]. By separate Order, the Court will TRANSFER this
action to the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.
S O 	O R D E R E D .
SIGNED March 25, 2026.
U 	I T E D 	S T A T E S 	D I S T R I C T 	J U D G E
Case 3:25-cv-00395-S-BK Document 39 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>