Global Events Management Group, Inc. v. Mullins et al
Filing
101
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 95 Second Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Amended Counterclaim; striking Defendants' [91, 92] amended counterclaims from the record; and setting this matter for trial, including now setting the remaining pretr ial deadlines and a trial date. All motions in limine are due December 15, 2016; All responses in opposition to the motions in limine are due January 6, 2017. The parties are not permitted to file reply briefs in support of their motions in limina wi thout first obtaining permission from the Court. A pretrial conference is scheduled for January 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. Jury selection and trial assignment are scheduled for January 23, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/27/2016. (jah)
IN THE UNITED
FOR THE
STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
GLOBAL
EVENTS
GROUP,
INC.,
MANAGEMENT
*
*
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
*
JOSEPH MULLINS, and MULLINS
MANAGEMENT, INC.,
CV
113-101
*
*
Defendants.
*
ORDER
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Motion to
Dismiss
Defendants'
consideration,
STRIKES
the
Defendants'
the record.
Amended
Court
Counterclaim.
DENIES
amended
But
(docs.
not
include
case
(Docs.
in June
1,
10.)
counterclaims.
deadline for filing motions to amend.
Defendants
the
91,
2013,
Court
92)
from
and Defendants
Defendants'
Subsequently,
entered a scheduling order, which set November 26,
2013,
Upon
Background
initiated this
answered in August 2013.
26,
95.)
The Court also sets this matter for trial.
Plaintiff
did
motion.
counterclaims
I.
answer
the
(Doc.
without
filed
moving
for
counterclaims
leave
for
(Doc.
to
12.)
amend
breach
of
original
the
Court
2013, as the
On November
their
answer,
contract
and
defamation.
(Doc.
counterclaims
move
for
and
leave
and
(2)
On
December
to
18.)
argued
Plaintiff
(1)
that
moved
to
Defendants
amend their answer
to
dismiss
failed
add the
opposition
to
2013,
Plaintiff's
amend their answer to
Defendants
Defendants
also
motion
filed
to
and
add their counterclaims.
attached
an
amended
(Doc.
their
dismiss
answer
19.)
response
in
a
to
motion
(Docs.
to
timely
counterclaims,
that the counterclaims failed on the merits.
30,
to
the
20,
their
21.)
response
brief.
The Court granted Defendants' motion for leave to amend and
granted
in
dismiss.
part
(Doc.
and
36.)
denied
in
part
Plaintiff's
Although Defendants'
motion
motion to
to
amend was
not timely under the scheduling order, the Court determined that
leave to amend was warranted because Defendants had attempted to
timely amend their answer.
would
consider
only
the
The Court noted,
original
counterclaims,
counterclaims attached to Defendants'
in
some
material
respects
from
Defendants on November 26, 2013."
however,
that it
because
the
response brief "differ[ed]
the
(Doc.
Counterclaim
36 at 2 n.l.)
filed
by
Indeed,
one paragraph "was amended to provide greater factual detail and
a request for a specified amount of special damages was added to
Defendants'
"permit[ted]
prayer for relief."
(IdJ
Accordingly,
the Court
Defendants leave to amend their Answer and assert
their
counterclaims
filing."
As
Court
as
alleged
in
their
November
26,
2013
(Doc. 36 at 5 n.5.)
for
the
found that
defamation
and
merits
determined
plead
special
Plaintiff's
Defendants
denied
Court
of
motion
Defendants
damages
and
to
dismiss,
had adequately pleaded a
Plaintiff's
that
motion
granted
had
on
that
failed
Plaintiff's
claim for
issue.
to
the
But
the
sufficiently
motion
on
that
issue.
Without
explanation,
additional
documents
counterclaims").
claims
contract
on
as
22,
asserting
(Docs.
91,
Defendants'
and
July
92.)
The
Defendants
counterclaims
filed
("amended
These filings assert the same
original
defamation.
2016,
counterclaims
only
noticeable
—
breach
differences
of
in
these filings are that Defendants appear to once again attempt
to
correct
the
pleading
deficiencies
request for special damages.
with
respect
to
their
Plaintiff moves to dismiss these
counterclaims.
II.
Discussion
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff
should
be
contends
dismissed
as
that
Defendants'
untimely
and
amended
that
they
counterclaims
fail
on
the
merits.1
Court's
Specifically,
Order
Defendants'
theory,
which
Plaintiff takes the position that the
granting
Defendants
counterclaims filed.
leave
to
amend
Accordingly,
did
not
deem
under Plaintiff's
the Court simply granted Defendants the right to amend,
they
failed to
appropriately
exercise.
construed
as
But
the
allowing
Court's
Order
Defendants
counterclaims alleged in their November 26,
to
is
more
pursue
the
2013,
filing — with
the exception of the request for special damages.
(See Doc. 36
at
5 n.5.)
from
Indeed,
substituting
the Court specifically precluded Defendants
that
their response brief.
filing
with
the
document
Because Defendants were not
refile their counterclaims,
the
Court DENIES
attached
to
required to
Plaintiff's motion
to dismiss.
2. Discovery
In its motion to dismiss,
reopen
discovery
essentially
if
it
contends
does
that
discovery with respect to
Defendants'
not
the
grant
the
parties
Defendants'
the Court granted Defendants'
discussed,
Plaintiff requests that the Court
motion.
did
counterclaims,
motion to amend.
counterclaims
not
were
Plaintiff
engage
in
even after
But, as already
considered
filed
on
the day the Court granted leave to amend — which was four months
before discovery was set to close.
And the parties engaged in
1 Because Defendants must rely on the allegations found in the original
counterclaims,
the Court finds it unnecessary to address Plaintiff's
arguments on the merits of Defendants' amended counterclaims.
discovery through the spring of 2015.
ample
time
to
conduct
discovery
on
Because the parties had
Defendants'
counterclaims,
Plaintiff's request to reopen discovery is DENIED.
3. Defendants'
Amended Counterclaims
Although the Court finds it appropriate to deny Plaintiff's
motion
to
dismiss,
Defendants'
granted
amended
statements
"'resulted
with
caused
in
the
motion
allege
91,
in
a
92
11
deficiencies
specifically pleading
may not seek them now.
alleged
survived Plaintiff's
clarity
going
to
necessary
noted
that
to
with
engage
of
in
in
is,
Because
and
business
excess
of
Defendants
original
filing
by
the Court has
they
Defendants may pursue only the
in their November 26,
first motion to
the
their
defamatory
future
That
their
in
to
$78,000.00"
revenue
49-50.)
Court
respect
Plaintiff's
of
strike
the
Curiously,
loss
loss
in
above,
dismiss
damages.
to
claim for special damages,
Rather,
forward,
counterclaims (docs.
As
special damages.
already dismissed Defendants'
counterclaims
it
financial
refusing
resulting
(Docs.
cure
finds
special
"direct
customers
Defendants
to
for
Defendants
$100,000.00."
seek
first
request
filings,
also
counterclaims.
Plaintiff's
Defendants'
new
it
2013,
dismiss.
Court
filing that
For the
ORDERS
91, 92) STRUCK from the record.
the
sake of
amended
4. Motions in Limine, Pretrial Conference, and Trial
In February 2016,
82.)
the Court set this case for trial.
Subsequently,
the
parties
jointly
asked
the
(Doc.
Court
to
extend the pretrial deadlines and continue the trial while they
engaged
in
granted
this
extension,
95.)
and a
trial
discussions.
request.
the
(Doc.
All
settlement
(Doc.
parties
filed
(Doc.
86.)
85.)
Following
their
proposed
The
an
Court
additional
pretrial
order.
The Court now sets the remaining pretrial deadlines
date.
motions
in
limine
are
due
December
16,
2016.
All
responses in opposition to the motions in limine are due January
6, 2017.
support
The parties are not permitted to file reply briefs in
of
their
motions
in
limine
without
first
obtaining
permission from the Court.
A pretrial conference is scheduled for January 18, 2017, at
10:00 a.m.
Jury
selection and
for January 23,
2017,
the
take
Court
will
trial
at 9:00 a.m.
up
any
assignment
are
scheduled
At the pretrial conference,
pending motions
and
will
approve,
reject, or direct amendment of the proposed pretrial order.
trial exhibits
(in digital format)
All
and an exhibit list must be
provided to the Court at the pretrial conference.
for each party must attend the pretrial conference.
Lead counsel
Ill
For
the
reasons
explained
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss
to reopen discovery.
counterclaims
ORDER
October,
(docs.
ENTERED
Conclusion
above,
(doc.
95)
the
Court
and Plaintiff's request
The Court also STRIKES Defendants'
91,
Augusta,
amended
92).
at
DENIES
Georgia
this /£>i/^yday
oj
2016.
HONOMEIiB-^.
UNITED
STATES
SOUTHERN
RANDAL HALL
DISTRICT
DISTRICT
JUDGE
OF GEORGIA
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?