The Passavant Memorial Area Hospital Association v. Lancaster Pollard & Co. et al

Filing 29

OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/22/2011. The Parties' Agreed Motion and Stipulation to Extension of Time to Respond to Third-Party Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (d/e 25) is GRANTED. Responses to motions filed in d/e's 19, 21, 23 and 27 are all due on or before 8/22/2011. (MAS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 22 July, 2011 04:04:47 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
THE PASSAVANT MEMORIAL AREA
HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, an Illinois
not-for-profit corporation,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) Case No. 11-3116
)
LANCASTER POLLARD & CO., an Ohio )
corporation; LANCASTER POLLARD
)
ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC an Ohio
)
limited liability company; and STEVEN W. )
KENNEDY, JR.,
)
)
Defendants and Third-Party
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
JASON L. GEORGE, ALLISON M.
)
BINKLEY, and PECK SHAFFER &
)
WILLIAMS, LLP,
)
)
Third-Party Defendants.
)
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on the Parties’ Agreed Motion and
Page 1 of 3

Stipulation to Extension of Time to Respond to Third-Party Defendants’
Motions to Dismiss (d/e 25).
In April 2011, Plaintiff, the Passavant Memorial Area Hospital
Association, filed a Complaint against Defendants Lancaster Pollard &
Co., Lancaster Pollard Asset Management, and Steve W. Kennedy, Jr. in
state court (Defendants). In May 2011, Defendants filed a Notice of
Removal to this Court. On May 27, 2011, Defendants filed a ThirdParty Complaint against Third-Party Defendants Jason L. George, Allison
M. Binkly, and Peck, Shaffer & Williams, LLP.
In July 2011, Third-Party Defendants Binkley and Peck, Shaffer &
Williams, LLP, filed Motions to Dismiss (de/ 19, 21, 23). Responses are
due on or before July 28, 2011. In addition, Third-Party Defendant
George’s response to the Third-Party Complaint is due on or before July
21, 2011. The parties anticipated that Third-Party Defendant George
will file a similar motion to dismiss. Third-Party Defendant George did,
in fact, file a Motion to Dismiss on July 21, 2011 (d/e 27).
The parties request, in the interest of streamlining the litigation and

Page 2 of 3

giving the responding parties additional time to respond to the Motions
to Dismiss, that the deadline to respond to the Motions to Dismiss on
file and any motion filed by Third-Party Defendant George (on or before
July 21, 2011) be extended to August 22, 2011.
For good cause shown, the Parties’ Agreed Motion and Stipulation
to Extension of Time to Respond to Third-Party Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss (d/e 25) is GRANTED. Responses to the following motions are
due on or before August 22, 2011: (1) Third-Party Defendant Binkley’s
Motion to Dismiss (d/e 19); (2) Third-Party Defendant Peck Shaffer &
Williams, LLP’s Motion to Dismiss (d/e 21); (3) Third-Party Defendant
Peck Shaffer & Williams, LLP’s Motion to Dismiss (d/e 23); and (4)
Third-Party Defendant George’s Motion to Dismiss (d/e 27).
ENTERED: July 22, 2011
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3