Watchous Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Pacific National Capital et al
ORDER granting 31 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Order to Show Cause. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 7/6/2017. (srj)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
WATCHOUS ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.,
Case No. 16-1432-JTM
PACIFIC NATIONAL CAPITAL, et al.,
On June 8, 2017, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 31). The undersigned U.S. Magistrate
Judge, James P. O’Hara, expedited the response and reply deadlines with regard to
plaintiff’s motion to June 16, 2017 and June 19, 2017, respectively (ECF No. 33).
Defendants’ counsel thereafter filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for all defendants
(ECF No. 34–36).1 On June 16, 2017, the undersigned entered an order (ECF No. 37)
granting counsel’s motion to withdraw, and further providing:
With the entry of this order, defendants are left without counsel. Because
today is the deadline for defendants to respond to plaintiff’s pending
motion for leave to amend complaint (ECF No. 31), the court, on its own
motion, extends the response and reply deadlines to June 28, 2017 and July
10, 2017, respectively. The court notes that corporations may not be
represented pro se, and therefore it is critical that an attorney enter an
appearance by June 28, 2017.
On June 15, 2017, the undersigned entered an order (ECF No. 35) denying without
prejudice counsel’s initial motion to withdraw as counsel for all defendants (ECF No. 34) for
failure to comply with D. Kan. Rule 83.5.5. Counsel thereafter filed an amended motion to
withdraw (ECF No. 36).
No response to plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend has been filed, and no
attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of defendants.
The court considers
plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 31) unopposed and grants it without further notice.2 Plaintiff
shall file its amended complaint forthwith. Additionally, defendants are directed to show
cause in writing (and through counsel) to the Honorable J. Thomas Marten, United States
District Judge, on or before July 20, 2017, why default judgment should not be entered
against defendants for failure to secure counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated July 6, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O=Hara
James P. O=Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge
D. Kan. Rule 7.4(b) provides, “If a responsive brief or memorandum is not filed
within the Rule 6.1(d) time requirements, the court will consider and decide the motion as
an uncontested motion. Ordinarily, the court will grant the motion without further
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?