Murphy et al v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al, No. 2:2015cv05566 - Document 42 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER and REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Honeywell's motion to dismiss (Rec. Doc. 4) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its right to re-file the motion following Plaintiff's amendment. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Honeywell's foregoing motion to continue (Rec. Doc. 41) is DENIED as MOOT, as stated within document. Signed by Chief Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/16/2016. (cbs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Murphy et al v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al Doc. 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ROBIN MURPHY, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 15-5566 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC., ET AL. SECTION "N" (5) ORDER AND REASONS Presently before the Court is the "Unopposed Motion to Continue Submission Date submitted by Honeywell International Inc., as successor-in-interest to Allied Chemical Corporation" (Rec. Doc. 41). The motion seeks a continuance of the submission date of Honeywell's pending "Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First and Second Supplemental and Amending Petitions for Damages" (Rec. Doc. 4) to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to first amend the petitions prior to the Court's determination of the motion to dismiss. Considering the foregoing, and the record in this matter, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Honeywell's motion to dismiss (Rec. Doc. 4) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its right to re-file the motion following Plaintiff's amendment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must submit its proposed Third Supplemental and Amending Petition, as well as a motion for leave to file, on or before Thursday, June 30, 2016. Once filed, the Third Supplemental and Amending Petition shall supersede the First and Second Supplemental and Amending Petitions for Damages. Dockets.Justia.com IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Honeywell's foregoing motion to continue (Rec. Doc. 41) is DENIED as MOOT. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of June 2016. __________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
