Shipp v. Murphy et al

Filing 78

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 75 Motion to Stay. See Order for specifics. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on July 23, 2019. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
CRAIG SHIPP
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:18-cv-4017

STEVEN ARNOLD; DR.
MIMO LEMDJA; LENORA
TURNER; KINDALL SMITH;
and CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is Separate Defendant Steven Arnold’s (“Arnold”) Motion to Stay
Dispositive Motions Deadline. (ECF No. 75). Plaintiff Craig Shipp has responded in opposition
to the motion. (ECF No. 76). Separate Defendants Correct Care Solutions, LLC; Mimo Lemdja;
Kindall Smith; and Lenora Turner (the “Medical Defendants”) have responded in support of the
motion. (ECF No. 77). The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.
On June 18, 2019, Arnold and the Medical Defendants filed separate motions for leave to
file amended answers, indicating that they wish to affirmatively plead lack of standing and capacity
to sue pursuant to facts discovered after the passage of the amendment deadline. On July 19, 2019,
Arnold filed the instant motion, asking the Court to stay the dispositive motions deadline—
currently set for July 24, 2019—until the Court rules on the pending motions for leave to amend.
Specifically, Arnold asks that, if the Court ultimately grants the pending motions for leave to
amend, that the dispositive motions deadline be reset to sixty days after the date the Court grants
leave to amend. Arnold alternatively asks that, if the Court denies leave to amend, that the
dispositive motions deadline be reset to fourteen days after the date of the denial. 1 The Medical
1

Thus, although the instant motion is styled as a motion to stay deadlines, it is more akin to a motion requesting

Defendants echo these sentiments and request that the Court grant the instant motion. Plaintiff
opposes the motion, arguing that the requested extensions are unnecessary because no legal basis
exists for allowing Arnold and the Medical Defendants to amend their answers.
Upon consideration, the Court finds that good cause for the motion has been shown.
Plaintiff’s opposition to the instant motion is predicated on the assertion that a lack of capacity to
sue argument would fail on the merits. This, however, is not the question presently before the
Court. Instead, the Court must presently determine only whether an extension of the dispositive
motion deadline is warranted. The Court finds that it is.
Accordingly, Arnold’s motion (ECF No. 75) is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. However, the Court will not grant the full extent of the relief sought by
Defendants. If Defendants’ motions for leave to amend are granted, the dispositive motions
deadline will be extended thirty days from the date leave to amend is given. If Defendants’ motions
for leave to amend are denied, the dispositive motions deadline will be extended seven days from
the date leave to amend is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of July, 2019.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge

extensions of time.

2