Jiggetts v. Allied Barton Security Services, No. 1:2008cv04371 - Document 35 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER #97195: Upon review of the submissions, Jiggetts's Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 28) is GRANTED, Defendants' Motions for a More Definite Statement (Docket Nos. 12 & 18) are DISMISSED, an d Defendants shall have until April 6, 2009, to Answer or otherwise respond to Jiggetts's Second Amended Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no further motions to amend shall be filed by Jiggetts absent express permission of the Court. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 3/9/09) (mme) Modified on 3/11/2009 (mro).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK < KYLE JIGGETTS, Plaintiff, - against ALLIED BARTON SECURITY SERVICES, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 08 Civ. 4371 (JSR) (RLE) < RONALD L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge: The following Opinion and Order addresses and resolves Docket Entry Numbers 12, 18, and 28, encompassing Defendants respective Motions for More Definite Statement and Pro se Plaintiff Kyle Jiggetts s Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. In the instant action, Jiggetts filed a Complaint against his employer, AlliedBarton Security Services, Inc. ( AlliedBarton ), and then amended the Complaint to add a second Defendant, New York City Department of Transportation ( DOT ), and additional claims. On August 20, 2008, Defendant AlliedBarton moved for a more definite statement with regard to the Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 12.) On October 6, 2008, DOT joined AlliedBarton s motion and filed its own Motion for a More Definite Statement. (Docket No. 18.) Neither Defendant has answered the First Amended Complaint. Following Defendants submissions, the Court sought to clarify Jiggetts s various filings and communications with the Court and to ascertain what submissions each Defendant possessed. On October 27, 2008, the Court ordered 1) Jiggetts to produce certain documents to Defendants and verify that production to the Court and 2) Defendants to indicate whether these documents had obviated the need for a more definite statement from Jiggetts. Defendants submitted a joint response to the Court on November 21,
]]>
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.
