SCOTT v. MANENTI et al, No. 1:2015cv07213 - Document 67 (D.N.J. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 11/17/2016. (tf, n.m.)

Download PDF
SCOTT v. MANENTI et al Doc. 67 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JOSEPH SCOTT, HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 15-7213 (JBS/AMD) v. JOHN MANENTI, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION SIMANDLE, Chief Judge: This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Joseph Scott’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Docket Entry 43); motion for order to show cause (Docket Entry 53); and motions for default judgment against Defendants Drs. John Manenti and Ruben Morales seeking $20,000 from each (Docket Entry 54 and 55), which motions Plaintiff withdrew on November 9, 2016. (Docket Entry 65.) As of October 24, 2016, all Defendants have been served; however, no responsive pleadings have been filed. (Docket Entry 63.) Instead, on October 24, 2016, AUSA David Bober sought additional time to respond to the Complaint (Docket Entry 63), which the Court granted with a new due date of November 1, 2016. (Docket Enry 64.) No response has been received from the United States or the individual defendants named in the Complaint and Dockets.Justia.com in the Amended Complaint. (Docket Entry 50.) Meanwhile, Plaintiff has filed a motion on November 9, 2016 (Docket Entry 66) for an extension of time to file a certificate of merit, for which any opposition is due November 28, 2016. Sensing that there must be some confusion as evidence by the Defendants’ failure to respond to the Complaint, the Amended Complaint, and the above motions (Docket Entries 43, 50, 53, and 66), the Court will direct that the Defendants do so forthwith, and no later than November 29, 2016. No further extensions will be granted. The accompanying Order is entered. November 17, 2016 Date s/ Jerome B. Simandle JEROME B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. 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.