Perry v. Schneider National Bulk Carriers, Inc.

Filing 10

ORDER denying 7 MOTION to Substitute; to the extent that plf seeks to file the motion for Leave to amend complaint, it is GRANTED and that document shall be deemed a pending motion; further ORDERING that defendants shall have until 6/22/2010 to sub mit any brief in opposition to the 7 motion for leave to amend complaint; ORDERING that the 7 motion for leave to file the motion for remand is DENIED as premature, as further set out in order. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 6/15/10. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION T A M M Y PERRY, P L A IN T IF F , v. S C H N E ID E R NATIONAL BULK C A R R IE R , INC., et al., DEFEN DANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C I V I L ACTION No. 3:10-CV-455-MEF (W O )

M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER T h is cause is before the Court on the Motion to Substitute Plaintiff's Objection to the D e f en d a n t's Notice of Removal with Motion for Remand (Doc. # 7) filed on June 3, 2010 b y counsel for plaintiff Tammy Perry ("Perry). By this motion, Perry seeks to have the Court d e e m her Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. # 7-1) and Motion for Remand (Doc. # 7-1) deemed filed as of May 27, 2010, the date on which Perry originally objected to the rem o v al. Perry provides no legal authority for the "substitution" she seeks, nor is the Court a w a re of any. Moreover, the Court is not at all sure that the date of the filing of either motion w o u ld be significant to any of the legal issues contained therein. Accordingly, to the extent that Perry asks the Court to substitute these documents, her motion is DENIED. However, to the extent that she seeks to file the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, it is G R A N T E D and that document shall be deemed a pending motion. It is further ORDERED th a t Defendants shall have until June 22, 2010 to submit any brief in opposition to the M o tio n for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. # 7-1). Because the Motion for Remand (Doc.

# 7-1) depends entirely on an assumption that the amended complaint, itself, has been filed, it is premature. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion for leave to file the motion for re m a n d is DENIED as such a motion is premature. Should the amendment be allowed and sh o u ld Perry wish to persist in her contention that the amended complaint divests this Court o f subject matter jurisdiction, she may refile a motion for remand at a later date. DONE this the 15th day of June, 2010. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE