LaGrant et al v. Blackmon's, Inc.

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;The Court hereby ORDERS the plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not construe their failure to timely respond to the motion to dismiss as an admission of the merits of the motion and dismiss their claims under the Illinois Dramshop Act, 235 ILCS 5/6-21. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 3/18/2013. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LEWIS E. LAGRANT and ROSE M. LAGRANT,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 12-cv-1012-JPG-DGW

BLACKMON’S, INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This matter comes before the Court on the motion to strike (Doc. 10) filed by defendant
Blackmon’s Inc., which the Court construes as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). The motion was filed on December 4, 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the
response of plaintiffs Lewis E. LaGrant and Rose M. LaGrant was due 30 days after the motion to
dismiss was filed, but 30 days have passed and the plaintiffs have not responded. The Court may, it its
discretion, construe a party’s failure to file a timely response as an admission of the merits of the
motion. Local Rule 7.1(c). The Court hereby ORDERS the plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE on or
before April 1, 2013, why the Court should not construe their failure to timely respond to the motion to
dismiss as an admission of the merits of the motion and dismiss their claims under the Illinois
Dramshop Act, 235 ILCS 5/6-21. Failure to respond in a timely manner to this order may result in
dismissal of that claim for lack of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and
the Court’s inherent authority to manage its docket. See In re Bluestein & Co., 68 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th
Cir. 1995).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 18, 2013
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE