McLean et al v. Big Dog Group LLC et al

Filing 49

RULING granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion to File Amended Complaint. The clerk of court will file the Plaintiffs' Proposed Amended Complaint, which shall be considered as their first amended complaint. The motion is denied only i nsofar as the plaintiffs sought to amend the caption of the case. The 41 Motion to Amend Exhibits is granted. The clerk of court will add the exhibits submitted with the motion to the exhibits filed with Plaintiffs' Proposed Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' 44 Motion to Strike Defendant Ronald Todd Zeiglers Defendant 42 Response is granted. The clerk of court will strike the Defendant Response filed 5/28/2015. Defendant Zeigler shall have 21 days to file an answer - titled as such - to the Plaintiffs' Proposed Amended Complaint, which answer must conform to the requirements of Rule 8, Fed.R.Civ.P.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 9/8/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JAMES SPENCER MCLEAN, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 15-40-JWD-SCR
BIG DOG GROUP, LLC, ET AL.
RULING MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
and
RULING ON MOTION TO AMEND EXHIBITS
and
RULING ON MOTION STRIKE
Before the court are the following motions: (1) Motion to File
Amended Complaint, filed by the plaintiffs James Spencer McLean and
Mary Madeline Hebert McLean, record document number 39; (2) Motion
to Amend Exhibits, filed by the plaintiffs, record document number
41; and (3) Motion to Strike Defendant Ronald Todd Zeigler’s
Defendant Response, filed by the plaintiffs, record document number
44.

No opposition or other response has been filed by any

defendant.

Defendant Zeigler filed his Defendant Response to the

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended Complaint, but in it he did not oppose
the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file their Plaintiffs’ Proposed
Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs’

Motion

to

File

Amended

Complaint

and

their

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended Complaint have been considered. While
the

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended Complaint is far from a model

pleading, a pro se party’s pleadings are to be held to less

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d
652

(1972).

The

Plaintiffs’

Proposed

Amended

Complaint

is

sufficient to comply with Rule 8, Fed.R.Civ.P. This determination,
however, must not be construed as finding that the allegations in
the Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended Complaint are sufficient to state
a claim on which relief can be granted.

Insofar as the plaintiffs

sought to amend the caption of the case, this aspect of their
motion will be denied because it is not necessary to amend the
caption as parties are joined or dismissed from the case.
Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Amend Exhibits to add
exhibits

3

Complaint.

through

9

to

their

Plaintiffs’

Proposed

Amended

Defendant

Response

to

This motion is granted.

Defendant

Zeigler

filed

his

the

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended Complaint as though leave to file it
had already been granted.

The Defendant Response is in numbered

paragraphs, but the paragraph numbers do not coordinate with the
paragraph of the Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended Complaint.
they

are

just

statements,

like

a

letter,

made

in

Rather
numbered

paragraphs.
Plaintiffs then filed their Motion to Strike Defendant Ronald
Todd Zeigler’s Defendant Response on the ground that it is not an
answer that admits or denies the allegations in the Plaintiffs’
Proposed Amended Complaint.

Although defendant Zeigler’s response

2

to the original Complaint was found to be sufficient, given that a
pro se party’s pleadings are to be held to less stringent pleading
standard,

his

Defendant

Response

to

the

Plaintiffs’

Proposed

Amended Complaint is cannot be considered sufficient.

It is

impossible to confidently correlate the statements in his Defendant
Response with the allegations in the Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended
Complaint.

Defendant Zeigler will be required to file an amended

answer which complies with Rule 8(b) and (c), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Accordingly, the court rules as follows:
Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Amended Complaint is granted
in part and denied in part.
Plaintiffs’

Proposed

The clerk of court will file the

Amended

Complaint,

which

considered as their first amended complaint.

shall

be

The motion is

denied only insofar as the plaintiffs sought to amend the
caption of the case.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Exhibits is granted. The
clerk of court will add the exhibits submitted with the motion
to

the

exhibits

filed

with

Motion

to

Plaintiffs’

Proposed

Amended

Complaint.
Plaintiffs’

Strike

Defendant

Ronald

Todd

Zeigler’s Defendant Response is granted. The clerk of court
will strike the Defendant Response filed May 28, 2015 (record
document number 42). Defendant Zeigler shall have 21 days to
file an answer - titled as such - to the Plaintiffs’ Proposed

3

Amended

Complaint,

which

answer

must

conform

to

requirements of Rule 8, Fed.R.Civ.P.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 8, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

the