Global Events Management Group, Inc. v. Mullins et al, No. 1:2013cv00101 - Document 101 (S.D. Ga. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER denying Plaintiff's 95 Second Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Amended Counterclaim; striking Defendants' [91, 92] amended counterclaims from the record; and setting this matter for trial, including now setting the remaining pretr ial deadlines and a trial date. All motions in limine are due December 15, 2016; All responses in opposition to the motions in limine are due January 6, 2017. The parties are not permitted to file reply briefs in support of their motions in limina wi thout first obtaining permission from the Court. A pretrial conference is scheduled for January 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. Jury selection and trial assignment are scheduled for January 23, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/27/2016. (jah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Global Events Management Group, Inc. v. Mullins et al Doc. 101 IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION GLOBAL EVENTS GROUP, INC., MANAGEMENT * * * Plaintiff, * * * JOSEPH MULLINS, and MULLINS MANAGEMENT, INC., CV 113-101 * * Defendants. * ORDER Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Motion to Dismiss Defendants' consideration, STRIKES the Defendants' the record. Amended Court Counterclaim. DENIES amended But (docs. not include case (Docs. in June 1, 10.) counterclaims. deadline for filing motions to amend. Defendants the 91, 2013, Court 92) from and Defendants Defendants' Subsequently, entered a scheduling order, which set November 26, 2013, Upon Background initiated this answered in August 2013. 26, 95.) The Court also sets this matter for trial. Plaintiff did motion. counterclaims I. answer the (Doc. without filed moving for counterclaims leave for (Doc. to 12.) amend breach of original the Court 2013, as the On November their answer, contract and Dockets.Justia.com defamation. (Doc. counterclaims move for and leave and (2) On December to 18.) argued Plaintiff (1) that moved to Defendants amend their answer to dismiss failed add the opposition to 2013, Plaintiff's amend their answer to Defendants Defendants also motion filed to and add their counterclaims. attached an amended (Doc. their dismiss answer 19.) response in a to motion (Docs. to timely counterclaims, that the counterclaims failed on the merits. 30, to the 20, their 21.) response brief. The Court granted Defendants' motion for leave to amend and granted in dismiss. part (Doc. and 36.) denied in part Plaintiff's Although Defendants' motion motion to to amend was not timely under the scheduling order, the Court determined that leave to amend was warranted because Defendants had attempted to timely amend their answer. would consider only the The Court noted, original counterclaims, counterclaims attached to Defendants' in some material respects from Defendants on November 26, 2013." however, that it because the response brief "differ[ed] the (Doc. Counterclaim 36 at 2 n.l.) filed by Indeed, one paragraph "was amended to provide greater factual detail and a request for a specified amount of special damages was added to Defendants' "permit[ted] prayer for relief." (IdJ Accordingly, the Court Defendants leave to amend their Answer and assert their counterclaims filing." As Court as alleged in their November 26, 2013 (Doc. 36 at 5 n.5.) for the found that defamation and merits determined plead special Plaintiff's Defendants denied Court of motion Defendants damages and to dismiss, had adequately pleaded a Plaintiff's that motion granted had on that failed Plaintiff's claim for issue. to the But the sufficiently motion on that issue. Without explanation, additional documents counterclaims"). claims contract on as 22, asserting (Docs. 91, Defendants' and July 92.) The Defendants counterclaims filed ("amended These filings assert the same original defamation. 2016, counterclaims only noticeable — breach differences of in these filings are that Defendants appear to once again attempt to correct the pleading deficiencies request for special damages. with respect to their Plaintiff moves to dismiss these counterclaims. II. Discussion 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff should be contends dismissed as that Defendants' untimely and amended that they counterclaims fail on the merits.1 Court's Specifically, Order Defendants' theory, which Plaintiff takes the position that the granting Defendants counterclaims filed. leave to amend Accordingly, did not deem under Plaintiff's the Court simply granted Defendants the right to amend, they failed to appropriately exercise. construed as But the allowing Court's Order Defendants counterclaims alleged in their November 26, to is more pursue the 2013, filing — with the exception of the request for special damages. (See Doc. 36 at 5 n.5.) from Indeed, substituting the Court specifically precluded Defendants that their response brief. filing with the document Because Defendants were not refile their counterclaims, the Court DENIES attached to required to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss. 2. Discovery In its motion to dismiss, reopen discovery essentially if it contends does that discovery with respect to Defendants' not the grant the parties Defendants' the Court granted Defendants' discussed, Plaintiff requests that the Court motion. did counterclaims, motion to amend. counterclaims not were Plaintiff engage in even after But, as already considered filed on the day the Court granted leave to amend — which was four months before discovery was set to close. And the parties engaged in 1 Because Defendants must rely on the allegations found in the original counterclaims, the Court finds it unnecessary to address Plaintiff's arguments on the merits of Defendants' amended counterclaims. discovery through the spring of 2015. ample time to conduct discovery on Because the parties had Defendants' counterclaims, Plaintiff's request to reopen discovery is DENIED. 3. Defendants' Amended Counterclaims Although the Court finds it appropriate to deny Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, Defendants' granted amended statements "'resulted with caused in the motion allege 91, in a 92 11 deficiencies specifically pleading may not seek them now. alleged survived Plaintiff's clarity going to necessary noted that to with engage of in in is, Because and business excess of Defendants original filing by the Court has they Defendants may pursue only the in their November 26, first motion to the their defamatory future That their in to $78,000.00" revenue 49-50.) Court respect Plaintiff's of strike the Curiously, loss loss in above, dismiss damages. to claim for special damages, Rather, forward, counterclaims (docs. As special damages. already dismissed Defendants' counterclaims it financial refusing resulting (Docs. cure finds special "direct customers Defendants to for Defendants $100,000.00." seek first request filings, also counterclaims. Plaintiff's Defendants' new it 2013, dismiss. Court filing that For the ORDERS 91, 92) STRUCK from the record. the sake of amended 4. Motions in Limine, Pretrial Conference, and Trial In February 2016, 82.) the Court set this case for trial. Subsequently, the parties jointly asked the (Doc. Court to extend the pretrial deadlines and continue the trial while they engaged in granted this extension, 95.) and a trial discussions. request. the (Doc. All settlement (Doc. parties filed (Doc. 86.) 85.) Following their proposed The an Court additional pretrial order. The Court now sets the remaining pretrial deadlines date. motions in limine are due December 16, 2016. All responses in opposition to the motions in limine are due January 6, 2017. support The parties are not permitted to file reply briefs in of their motions in limine without first obtaining permission from the Court. A pretrial conference is scheduled for January 18, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. Jury selection and for January 23, 2017, the take Court will trial at 9:00 a.m. up any assignment are scheduled At the pretrial conference, pending motions and will approve, reject, or direct amendment of the proposed pretrial order. trial exhibits (in digital format) All and an exhibit list must be provided to the Court at the pretrial conference. for each party must attend the pretrial conference. Lead counsel Ill For the reasons explained Plaintiff's motion to dismiss to reopen discovery. counterclaims ORDER October, (docs. ENTERED Conclusion above, (doc. 95) the Court and Plaintiff's request The Court also STRIKES Defendants' 91, Augusta, amended 92). at DENIES Georgia this /£>i/^yday oj 2016. HONOMEIiB-^. UNITED STATES SOUTHERN RANDAL HALL DISTRICT DISTRICT JUDGE OF GEORGIA
]]>
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.
