Haygood v. Kambli et al

Filing 27

OPINION AND ORDER DEEMING MOOT 12 MOTION for More Definite Statement by Defendants Peter Buttigieg, Shubhada Kambli, South Bend Indiana City of. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 3/12/15. (cer)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA BRIAN HAYGOOD, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, Defendant. CIVIL NO. 3:14cv1934 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on a Motion for More Definite Statement, filed by the defendant on November 25, 2014. Plaintiff filed a response on January 14, 2015, to which the defendant replied on February 3, 2014. For the following reasons, the motion will be deemed moot. Discussion Defendant’s motion for more definite statement requests the court to order Plaintiff to clarify whether his respondeat superior claim is an independent tort claim or whether it is a part of his ADEA claim. On February 6, 2015, this court entered an Order granting Defendant’s motion for partial dismissal. In this Order, Plaintiff was ordered to amend the caption in his complaint such that the City of South Bend is the sole party. Additionally, Plaintiff’s ADEA claim was dismissed to the extent it sought damages against individual defendants, and Counts II (negligent hiring) and III (violation of wage payment statute) were completely dismissed. On March 3, 2015, in response to the court order, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint. This complaint consists of one count, which alleges violations of the ADEA. As the Second Amended Complaint clarifies the respondeat superior issue, the motion for more definite statement is now moot. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, defendant’s motion for more definite statement [DE 12] is hereby DEEMED MOOT. Entered: March 12, 2015. s/ William C. Lee William C. Lee, Judge United States District Court 2

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?