Campbell v. Mercer University et al
ORDER granting 38 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing; granting 54 Motion to Amend/Correct. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 1/8/2013. (nbp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Civil Action No. 5:12-cv-181 (HL)
MERCER UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Before the Court is Plaintiff Dexter Campbell’s Motion to Amend/Correct
the Complaint (Doc. 54). Plaintiff’s Motion is unopposed by Defendants, and
therefore, the Court grants the Motion to Amend.
Also pending in this case are three Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 34 (filed by
Defendant Bloodworth), Doc. 41 (filed by Defendants Bridger, Gaines, and
Mercer University), and Doc. 52 (filed by Defendant Bloodworth)) and two
Motions to Strike (Docs. 44 and 46 (both filed by Plaintiff)). There is also a Motion
for an Evidentiary Hearing pending, which was filed by Plaintiff as part of his
response to Defendant Bloodworth’s first Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 38). The
primary issue in these motions is whether service was properly effectuated on
Defendants. Based on a review of the Motions, the Court finds that factual issues
exist as to the question of service, and thus, a hearing is necessary.
The hearing shall be set for February 26, 2013 in Macon, Georgia. No
additional filings will be considered before the date of the hearing. It is not
necessary to re-file the Motions to Dismiss, despite the amendment of the
Complaint. If the parties feel that it is necessary to file any motion before
February 26, that party must move the Court for permission to file.
For good cause shown, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 54) and Plaintiff’s
Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 38) are granted. However, the Court
reserves judgment on all pending Motions to Dismiss and Motions to Strike. All
deadlines in the case are stayed until further order of the Court.
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of January, 2013.
s/ Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR 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?