Thomas v. ABC Insurance Company et al

Filing 43

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that 31 Third-Party Defendant AOA Services' motion for joinder is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Rain's 34 Motion for Leave to File Reply is DISMISSED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Rain's 29 Motion to Strike is GRANTED, as set forth in document. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Amended Pleadings are hereby STRICKEN from the record in the above-captioned matter. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 2/28/2018. (jls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JAMAL THOMAS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-6097

ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, ET. AL.

SECTION “B”(3)
ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Rain CII Carbon’s (“Defendant
Rain”)

“Motion

to

Strike

Plaintiff’s

Second

Supplemental

and

Amended Petition” (Rec. Doc. 29), Defendant Rain’s Motion for Leave
to

File

Reply

(Rec.

Doc.

34),

and

Third-Party

Defendant

AOA

Services, Inc.’s “Ex Parte Motion to Join and Adopt Motion to
Strike” (Rec. Doc. 31). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Third-Party Defendant AOA Services’ motion
for joinder (Rec. Doc. 31) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Rain’s Motion for Leave
to File Reply (Rec. Doc. 34) is DISMISSED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Rain’s Motion to Strike
is GRANTED. Plaintiff Jamal Thomas (“Plaintiff”) submitted his
Second Supplemental and Amending Complaint to this Court as an
unopposed Ex Parte motion. Rec. Doc. 25. However, Defendant Rain’s
Motion to Strike, as well as Defendant AOA Services’ Motion for
Joiner, provides that Plaintiff failed to receive consent for his
amended pleadings from at least two Defendants in this case. See
Local Rules 7.2 and 7.3; see also Matter of Teon Maria, LLC, No.

1

CV 12-1315, 2013 WL 12231273, at *3 (E.D. La. June 10, 2013)(“The
instant motion does not contain a proposed order. Therefore, if
construed as an ex parte submission, it would be in contravention
of the Rule. As such, it is more appropriate to consider this
motion as a ‘contested’ motion under L.R. 7.4”).
Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), provides
that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with
the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (emphasis added). The
scheduling order (Rec. Doc. 17) set a November 17, 2017 deadline
for parties to file amendments to pleadings, third-party actions,
cross-claims, and counter-claims. Plaintiff has not provided any
reasons

why

this

Court

should

modify

the

Scheduling

Order.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Amended Pleadings are
hereby STRICKEN from the record in the above-captioned matter.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of February, 2018.

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2