King et al v. Moore

Filing 11

ORDER denying as moot Defendant's 3 Motion to Dismiss; and granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 10 Motion to Amend/Correct. Plaintiff shall file their amended complaint on or before Miscellaneous Deadline 11/7/2011. See written Order attached. Entered by Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman on 10/31/2011. (RK, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 31 October, 2011 11:18:12 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Kalin King and Veronica King,
Plaintiffs
v.
James Moore,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-1290

ORDER
Now before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion (#10) to Amend/Correct. In that motion,
Plaintiffs ask for leave to amend the pleadings to add new parties and to add additional counts.
Plaintiffs also request leave to file a response to the motion to dismiss.
The motion to dismiss was filed on August 5, which made Plaintiffs’ response due by August
22. Obviously, the pending motion for leave to respond to that motion is untimely under the Local
Rules of this Court. CDIL-LR 7.1(A)(3).
The motion for leave to amend is based on information Plaintiffs’ counsel has apparently
gleaned in another lawsuit. Nothing in the motion states when this information was learned by
Plaintiffs’ counsel or why it was not learned in a good faith investigation into the facts prior to filing
this litigation. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not attached a proposed amended complaint, which would
be the better practice.
Nonetheless, in the exercise of my discretion, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART, as follows:
1.

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs
shall file their amended complaint on or before Nov. 7, 2011. Plaintiffs shall either
have summonses issued or file a notice of intent to proceed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
4(d) on the date the complaint is filed. If summonses are used, new parties shall be
promptly served pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. If Notices of Lawsuit are used, they
shall be promptly sent.

2.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss (#3) is DENIED AS MOOT. See Local Rule 7.1(E).
If appropriate, Defendant may revive it within 14 days after the amended complaint
is filed.

3.

Plaintiffs’ request to file a response to the pending motion to dismiss is DENIED.

4.

If Defendant does not revive the previously-filed and now-moot motion to dismiss,
a pleading responsive to the amended complaint shall be filed within 14 days after
the amended complaint has been filed.

5.

If Defendant files a pleading or motion requiring a response, Plaintiffs shall timely
file that response in compliance with the Federal and Local Rules.

This case was previously stayed until this date, in order to allow Plaintiffs’ counsel to obtain
co-counsel more knowledgeable about federal procedure. No co-counsel has entered an appearance
as of this date. The stay is therefore VACATED, and this case shall proceed.
This is not the first time that Plaintiffs’ procedural shortcomings have complicated or delayed
the proceedings in this case. Plaintiffs’ counsel is cautioned that he must familiarize himself with
the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Central District
of Illinois. Future deficiencies may not be treated leniently.
ENTERED ON October 31, 2011
s/ John A. Gorman
JOHN A. GORMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE