Smith-Hutchinson et al v. ITS Financial, LLC et al
Filing
41
ORDER - Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint (doc. 25 ) is hereby GRANTED. Defendants motion to dismiss (doc. 22 ) and motion for summary judgment (doc. 23 ) - directed to Plaintiffs' initial complaint - are theref ore DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of time (doc. 38 ) is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall file their memorandum in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment on or before November 15, 2013. Pla intiffs motion for leave (doc. 39 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Courts is hereby ORDERED to docket Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to Defendants motion to dismiss, which is attached to Plaintiffs' motion for leave as Exhibit 1. Doc. 39 -1. In light of Plaintiffs recent filings, the Court deems the terms of the pending Order to Show Cause (doc. 35 ) SATISFIED, and the Order is hereby RESCINDED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 10/29/13. (pb1)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
LIA SMITH-HUTCHINSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 3:13-CV-192
vs.
ITS FINANCIAL LLC, et al.,
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
(Consent Case)
Defendants.
ORDER
On August 13, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (doc. 22) and a motion for
summary judgment (doc. 23). On September 3, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their
complaint (doc. 25) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiffs subsequently filed their
amended complaint (doc. 26) on September 3, 2013. Defendants then filed their second motion
to dismiss (doc. 29) and second motion for summary judgment (doc. 30) on September 17, 2013.
Plaintiffs failed to timely respond to Defendants’ two dispositive motions. The Court issued an
Order to Show Cause on October 18, 2013, directing Plaintiffs to show cause on or before
October 30, 2013 why Defendants’ motions should not be granted. Doc. 35.
On October 21, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave, seeking leave to file a
memorandum in opposition in excess of twenty pages, and attached a proposed memorandum in
opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Doc. 36. The Court denied this motion without
prejudice on October 24, 2013 for failure to comply with Local Rule 7.2(a)(3). Doc. 37.
Plaintiffs then filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to file their memorandum in
opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on October 25, 2013, seeking to extend
the deadline to November 15, 2013. Doc. 38. Thereafter, on October 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a
second motion for leave to file a memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss in
excess of twenty pages and attached a second proposed memorandum in opposition to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Doc. 39.
Plaintiffs may amend their complaint as a matter of course because this is Plaintiffs’ first
amendment and the amended complaint was filed within twenty-one days of service of
Defendants’ motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend
their complaint (doc. 25) is hereby GRANTED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 22) and
motion for summary judgment (doc. 23) -- directed to Plaintiffs’ initial complaint -- are therefore
DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for extension of time (doc. 38) is
GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall file their memorandum in opposition to Defendants’
motion for summary judgment on or before November 15, 2013. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave
(doc. 39) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Courts is hereby ORDERED to docket Plaintiffs’
memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, which is attached to Plaintiffs’
motion for leave as Exhibit 1. Doc. 39-1. In light of Plaintiffs’ recent filings, the Court deems
the terms of the pending Order to Show Cause (doc. 35) SATISFIED, and the Order is hereby
RESCINDED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge
October 29, 2013
-2-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
