Davenport et al v. Hamilton, Brown & Babst, LLC, et al

Filing 132

ORDER ON SEPARATE MOTION TO REPLEAD: Plaintiffs shall have until November 26, 2010 to supplement their separate Motion to Replead by providing the Court with their proposed Second Amendment to the Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 11/16/10. (BP)

Davenport et al v. Hamilton, Brown & Babst, LLC, et al

Doc. 132

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH W. DAVENPORT, ET AL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 07-928-BAJ-SCR HAMILTON, BROWN & BABST, LLC, ET AL consolidated with PATRICK J. CUNNINGHAM, ET AL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 08-52-BAJ-SCR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, ET AL ORDER ON SEPARATE MOTION TO REPLEAD Before Replead. the Court is the plaintiffs' separate Motion to

Record document number 76.

The motion is opposed by

defendants Hamilton, Brown & Babst, LLC, Lowe, Stein, Hoffman, Allweiss & Hauver, LLP, and Lamothe & Hamilton, PLC.1 Plaintiffs Joseph W. Davenport, Jerry A. Landers and the Hull Barrett law firm moved to replead, i.e. to file an amended

complaint "with more detailed allegations" to join as defendants Charles E. Hamilton, III, Galen S. Brown and Michael R. Allweiss.2

1

Record document number 130.

Record document number 76, p. 5. Jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiffs are citizens of Alabama and Georgia. Joining Hamilton, Brown and Alweiss will not affect diversity jurisdiction.

2

Dockets.Justia.com

Their earlier Renewed Motion to Allow a Second Amendment to the Complaint to Add Additional Parties Defendants was denied and that ruling was upheld by the district judge.3 Defendants objected to

the Motion to Replead on the ground that because the plaintiffs only have an unadjudicated interest in a share of the attorney's fees arising from the underlying class action their conversion claim must fail. This is essentially the same argument that the

defendants made in their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Conversion Claim.4 That argument was apparently

unpersuasive and motion was denied.5

Defendants also argued,

without citation to any particular authority, that the proper defendants, if any, are the law firms and not the individual attorneys in them. In these circumstances, the best course is to allow the plaintiffs to submit their proposed amended complaint as though it had been initially submitted with their separate Motion to Replead. Then the Court can determine whether they should be allowed to file it. Therefore; IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall have until November

Record document number 74, Ruling on Renewed Motion to Amend Complaint; record document number 127, Ruling.
4

3

Record document number 85. Record document number 131, Ruling, pp. 10-12.

5

26,

2010

to

supplement

their

separate

Motion

to

Replead

by

providing the Court with their proposed Second Amendment to the Complaint. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 16, 2010.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE