-CHE The Passavant Memorial Area Hospital Association v. Lancaster Pollard & Co. et al, No. 3:2011cv03116 - Document 29 (C.D. Ill. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/22/2011. The Parties' Agreed Motion and Stipulation to Extension of Time to Respond to Third-Party Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (d/e 25) is GRANTED. Responses to motions filed in d/e's 19, 21, 23 and 27 are all due on or before 8/22/2011. (MAS, ilcd)

Download PDF
E-FILED Friday, 22 July, 2011 04:04:47 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION THE PASSAVANT MEMORIAL AREA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 11-3116 ) LANCASTER POLLARD & CO., an Ohio ) corporation; LANCASTER POLLARD ) ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC an Ohio ) limited liability company; and STEVEN W. ) KENNEDY, JR., ) ) Defendants and Third-Party ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) JASON L. GEORGE, ALLISON M. ) BINKLEY, and PECK SHAFFER & ) WILLIAMS, LLP, ) ) Third-Party Defendants. ) OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge. This cause is before the Court on the Parties Agreed Motion and Page 1 of 3 Stipulation to Extension of Time to Respond to Third-Party Defendants Motions to Dismiss (d/e 25). In April 2011, Plaintiff, the Passavant Memorial Area Hospital Association, filed a Complaint against Defendants Lancaster Pollard & Co., Lancaster Pollard Asset Management, and Steve W. Kennedy, Jr. in state court (Defendants). In May 2011, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal to this Court. On May 27, 2011, Defendants filed a ThirdParty Complaint against Third-Party Defendants Jason L. George, Allison M. Binkly, and Peck, Shaffer & Williams, LLP. In July 2011, Third-Party Defendants Binkley and Peck, Shaffer & Williams, LLP, filed Motions to Dismiss (de/ 19, 21, 23). Responses are due on or before July 28, 2011. In addition, Third-Party Defendant George s response to the Third-Party Complaint is due on or before July 21, 2011. The parties anticipated that Third-Party Defendant George will file a similar motion to dismiss. Third-Party Defendant George did, in fact, file a Motion to Dismiss on July 21, 2011 (d/e 27). The parties request, in the interest of streamlining the litigation and Page 2 of 3 giving the responding parties additional time to respond to the Motions to Dismiss, that the deadline to respond to the Motions to Dismiss on file and any motion filed by Third-Party Defendant George (on or before July 21, 2011) be extended to August 22, 2011. For good cause shown, the Parties Agreed Motion and Stipulation to Extension of Time to Respond to Third-Party Defendants Motions to Dismiss (d/e 25) is GRANTED. Responses to the following motions are due on or before August 22, 2011: (1) Third-Party Defendant Binkley s Motion to Dismiss (d/e 19); (2) Third-Party Defendant Peck Shaffer & Williams, LLP s Motion to Dismiss (d/e 21); (3) Third-Party Defendant Peck Shaffer & Williams, LLP s Motion to Dismiss (d/e 23); and (4) Third-Party Defendant George s Motion to Dismiss (d/e 27). ENTERED: July 22, 2011 FOR THE COURT: s/Sue E. Myerscough SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE Page 3 of 3

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.