HENRY et al v. TEAMSTERS JOINT LOCAL 69 et al

Filing 89

ORDER - denying as moot 66 Motion to Dismiss; granting 86 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. The Clerk shall detach and file the Second Amended Complaint and the exhibits thereto tendered at Docket Nos. 86- 1, 86-2, 86-3, and 86-4. The filing of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint renders moot Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint filed at Docket No. 66. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/4/2012. (CKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

RONALD HENRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TEAMSTERS JOINT LOCAL 69,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-357- SEB-TAB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Docket No. 86)
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.
The Court is unimpressed by the motion because it fails to explain how Plaintiffs’ lengthy (12 page)
and dense (59 single spaced paragraphs with additional sub-paragraphs) proposed Second Amended
Complaint differs from Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, including what parties and claims were
added or dropped. By failing to provide any such explanation, Plaintiffs require the Court to attempt
a side-by-side comparison of two documents in an effort to try to determine their similarities and
their differences. The Court is not required to perform the work that Plaintiffs’ counsel should have
done. In fact, the failure to explain the differences between Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and the proposed Second Amended Complaint could very well have been fatal to Plaintiffs’ motion,
but for the fact that Defendant filed nothing in opposition and, through its silence, has acquiesced
to the filing of Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint.1

1

The Court’s Courtroom Deputy telephoned Defendant’s counsel, who confirmed
Defendant’s acquiescing in the filing of Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint.

Because Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is unopposed,
the Court will and hereby does GRANT it. The Clerk shall “detach” and file the Second Amended
Complaint and the exhibits thereto tendered at Docket Nos. 86-1, 86-2, 86-3, and 86-4. The time
for Defendant’s responsive pleading shall be calculated from the date that the Second Amended
Complaint is docketed by the Clerk in accordance with the applicable Federal and Local Rules of
procedure.
The filing of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint renders moot Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint filed at Docket No. 66. Therefore, Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________

Date: 01/04/2012

SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Copies to:
Matthew A. Bahl
VERRILL DANA LLP
[e-mail]

Geoffrey S. Lohman
FILLENWARTH DENNERLINE GROTH
& TOWE LLP
[e-mail]

Edwin J. Broecker
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
[e-mail]

Ryan M. Martin
[e-mail]

Stuart R. Buttrick
BAKER & DANIELS
[e-mail]

Samuel Morris
GODWIN MORRIS LAURENZI &
BLOOMFIELD P.C.
[e-mail]

Robert D. Cheesebourough
[e-mail]

John T. Neighbours
BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis
[e-mail]

Neil E. Gath
FILLENWARTH DENNERLINE GROTH
& TOWE LLP
[e-mail]
2