Watchous Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Pacific National Capital et al

Filing 39

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)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS WATCHOUS ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-1432-JTM PACIFIC NATIONAL CAPITAL, et al., Defendants. ORDER 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. 1 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 2 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 notice.”

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?