Townsend v. National Cart Corporation

Filing 49

OPINION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that: (1) The United States Magistrate Judge's recommendation (doc. no. 38 ) is adopted in part, as discussed above. (2) The motion to dismiss (doc. no. 22 ) is denied in part to the extent that it requests dismissal on the basis that the complaint is a shotgun pleading, butremains pending on the statute-of-limitations argument. (3) This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further consideration in light of this order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/11/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(dmn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY TOWNSEND,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
WIN-HOLT EQUIPMENT
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:17cv218-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
This
States

matter

is

Magistrate

before

the

Judge's

court

on

the

United

recommendation

that

defendant's motion to dismiss be denied.

Defendant has

filed an objection (doc. no. 44) arguing, in part, that
the magistrate judge failed to address the requirements
of Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
While defendant’s motion to dismiss cited Rule 15(c)
and argued that relation back did not apply, it did
not, for the most part, set forth how the particular
provisions
example,

in

Rule

defendant

15(c)
argued

apply

to

about

this

case.

whether

For

plaintiff

properly

substituted

whether

plaintiff

it

for

acted

a

fictitious

with

“due

party

and

diligence”

in

identifying defendant, without ever stating how these
issues

relate

to

any

particular

15(c).

(The

court

assumes

argument

was

directed

to

subsection
the

of

Rule

fictitious-party

application

of

Rule

15(c)(1)(A)--allowing relation back where the rules of
the relevant state authorize it--but the motion does
not make that clear.)

It is defendant’s responsibility

to present its arguments in a clear, straightforward,
and well-organized manner.
Accordingly, upon an independent and de novo review
of

the

record,

the

court

concludes

that

the

recommendation should be adopted to the extent that it
recommends

denial

of

shotgun-pleading grounds.
dismiss

on

the

motion

to

dismiss

on

However, as to the motion to

statute-of-limitations

grounds,

the

court

believes that this matter should be referred back to
the magistrate judge for his consideration in the first
2

instance--so that he can require additional briefing,
file

a

supplemental

defendant's

Rule

recommendation

15(c)

appropriate action.

contentions,

addressing
or

take

the
other

The court takes no position on

whether the defendant's Rule 15(c) argument has merit.
***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1)

The

United

States

Magistrate

Judge's

recommendation (doc. no. 38) is adopted in part, as
discussed above.
(2) The motion to dismiss (doc. no. 22) is denied
in part to the extent that it requests dismissal on the
basis that the complaint is a shotgun pleading, but
remains pending on the statute-of-limitations argument.
(3) This case is referred back to the magistrate
judge for further consideration in light of this order.
DONE, this the 11th day of May, 2018.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE