Tidwell et al v. Chattanooga Fire Protection, Inc. et al

Filing 26

ORDER finding the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case at this time, and that the case shall proceed. Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to correct docket entry 24 Response filed by Douglas Tidwell, to reflect the document is the Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 10/10/2017. (pts)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION DOUGLAS TIDWELL and DAVID KEITH LEGGETT, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) CHATTANOOGA FIRE PROTECTION, INC.,) and JOSEPH ANTHONY BISHOP, ) ) Defendants. ) __________ CV 117-030 ORDER __________ The Court previously ordered Plaintiffs “to provide specific factual allegations demonstrating that the damages in this case will exceed $75,000.” (Doc. no. 17.) Plaintiffs responded with a document entitled, “Amended Complaint,” in which Plaintiffs added two paragraphs specifically noting damages in amounts satisfying the $75,000 threshold. (See doc. no. 24.) Thus, the Court finds that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case at this time, and the case shall proceed. Although Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint as a “Response,” Defendants responded with an “Answer to Amended Complaint.” (Doc. no. 25.) For clarity of the docket and to ensure the record accurately identifies the operative pleading, the Court DIRECTS the CLERK to correct docket entry 24 to reflect the document is the Amended Complaint. The case deadlines delineated in the Court’s September 1, 2017 Scheduling Order shall otherwise remain as stated. (See doc. no. 16.) SO ORDERED this 10th day of October, 2017, at Augusta, 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?