Siegel v. Heringer et al

Filing 58

ORDER granting 54 Motion to amend complaint. 35 and 38 Motions are granted. 43 and 47 Motions are denied. 56 Motion granted. The Court will rule on the pending motions for judgment 24 and 33 by separate order. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 9/17/2018. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION

KAREN SIEGEL
V.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00031

ANGIE HERINGER, Individually and as an
Officer for ARC ANGELS FOR ANIMALS;
ARC ANGELS FOR ANIMALS, an Arkansas
Corporation; RUTH SCROGGIN; MARGARET
SHEPHERD, Individually and as Director of
NORTHEAST ARKANSAS HUMANE SOCIETY;
NORTHEAST ARKANSAS HUMANE SOCIETY;
DR. KEVIN REED, Individually and as an
Officer for VETCARE, INC.; VETCARE, INC.;
CRAIGHEAD COUNTY; MARTY BOYD, as the
Craighead County Sheriff; RUSTY GRIGSBY,
Individually and in his official capacity as
Craighead County Sheriff Deputy; CATHY NORRIS;
DR. MICHAEL O. NORRIS; WYNNE FRIENDS OF
ANIMALS, AND JOHN/JANE DOE X-XX

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff, Karen Siegel, filed a complaint against numerous defendants arising out of the
seizure of thirty-one dogs from her property in Craighead County, Arkansas on February 26,
2015. Defendants Dr. Kevin Reed and Vetcare, Inc. (“Vetcare”) filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings (Document No. 24), which Defendant Ruth Scroggin and, separately, Kathy
Norris, Michael O. Norris, and the Wynn Friends of Animals (collectively “the Norris
defendants) have moved to adopt. Defendants ARC Angels for Animals and Angie Heringer
have also moved for judgment on the pleadings (Document No. 33). Siegel subsequently filed a
motion to amend her complaint. (Document No. 54).

Siegel’s motion to amend her complaint (Document No. 54) is GRANTED. She should
do so promptly upon receipt of this order. For administrative simplicity, rather than moot the
pending motions and have the defendants refile them, the Court will rule on the pending motions
for judgment on the pleadings as they relate to the amended complaint. Defendants are not
required to respond to the amended complaint until 10 days after the Court rules on the pending
motions for judgment on the pleadings.
The motions filed by Scroggin and the Norris defendants to adopt Dr. Reed and Vetcare’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document Nos. 35 and 38) are GRANTED.
Siegel’s two motions to strike the replies filed by Reed and Vetcare and by Arc Angels
for Animals and Angie Heringer (Document Nos. 43 and 47) are DENIED. The parties are
instructed to not file replies in the future without agreement with opposing counsel or leave of
the Court. Scroggin’s motion to adopt the reply filed by Reed and Vetcare (Document No. 56),
while unnecessary, is GRANTED.
The Court will rule on the pending motions for judgment on the pleadings (Document
Nos. 24 and 33) by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED 17th day of September, 2018.

_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2