King et al v. Homeward Residential Inc et al
ORDER denying as moot 80 Motion for Leave to Amend. Defendants are directed to file an answer to plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim, 2 , within 14 days of this order. The parties' joint motion for entry of scheduling order, 84 , is granted and a scheduling order will be entered following this order. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 8/19/2016. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
SAVOIL KING and DOROTHY KING,
for themselves and all Arkansas residents
CASE NO: 3:14CV00183 BSM
HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC., et al.
Pursuant to plaintiffs’ notice of withdrawal of their motion for leave to amend [Doc.
No. 85], plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend [Doc. No. 80] is denied as moot. Defendants
are directed to file an answer to plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim [Doc. No. 2] within
fourteen days of this order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A); Broglie v. Mackay-Smith, 75 F.R.D.
739, 742 (W.D. Va. 1977) (when a court of appeals reverse a district court’s Rule 12(b)
dismissal, defendant’s obligation to file an answer pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1) is revived, and
defendant has 14 days from the notification of reversal to file such answer).
The parties’ joint motion for entry of scheduling order [Doc. No. 84] is granted and
a scheduling order will be entered following this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of August 2016.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?