Powell et al v. Tosh et al, No. 5:2009cv00121 - Document 199 (W.D. Ky. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 138 Motion to Dismiss; denying 151 Motion for More Definite Statement; denying 152 Motion for Hearing; denying 151 Motion ; denying 162 Motion ; denying 179 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; denying 186 Motion for Hearing; denying 193 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 5/3/2011. cc:counsel (KJA)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION CASE NO. 5:09CV-121-R TERRY POWELL, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. JIMMY TOSH, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Multiple motions are before this Court. Two motions involve the class claims. After reviewing the controlling law, the Court will defer deciding whether the current case meets the requirements of a class action until the class certification motion is fully briefed. At that time, the Court will also determine whether a class certification hearing is needed. The class definition in Plaintiffs motion for class certification seems to address the majority of the concerns in Defendants motions. Defendants, however, take issue with the fact that Plaintiffs have not included their proposed definition in any of their pleadings. If class certification is granted, this Court will allow Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that states the class definition certified by this Court. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s Class Allegations is DENIED (DN 138). Defendants also filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement in regards to the class action claim. As discussed above, the majority of those issues seem to have been addressed and are better resolved during the class certification phase of this action. Accordingly, the Motion for a More Definite Statement is DENIED (DN 151). The parties also request a hearing (DN 152, 186). The Court has addressed all the issues by written opinion. Accordingly, the Motion for Hearing is DENIED. A motion to hold expert disclosure in abeyance has also been filed (DN 162). This seems to have been addressed by the agreed amended scheduling order. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as MOOT (DN 162). A motion for an extension of time to respond to the class certification is also before the Court (DN 179). This was also addressed by the agreed amended scheduling order. Accordingly, it is DENIED as MOOT (DN 179). Finally, a motion for an extension of time to reply to the motion for class certification is before this Court (DN 193). In light of a more recent motion asking for the same, this motion is DENIED as MOOT. The following motions are DENIED: Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Class Allegations (DN 138); Motion for More Definite Statement (DN 151); Motion for Hearing (DN 152); Motion for Hearing/Status Conference (DN 186). The following motions are DENIED as MOOT: Motion to Hold Expert Disclosure in Abeyance (DN 162); Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Certify Class (DN 179); Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to Motion for Class Certification (DN 193). IT IS SO ORDERED. May 3, 2011 2

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.