McLean et al v. Big Dog Group LLC et al

Filing 54

RULING: The 45 Motion to Compel Answer of Defendant filed by the James Spencer McLean and Mary Madeline Hebert McLean is denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 10/14/2015. (BCL)

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 COMPEL
Before the court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Answer of
Defendant Ronald Todd Zeigler filed by the James Spencer McLean and
Mary Madeline Hebert McLean.

Record document number 45.

No

opposition or other response has been filed.
Plaintiffs filed this motion seeking to compel defendant
Ronald Todd Zeilger to admit or deny the plaintiffs’ allegations in
their Complaint as required by Rule 8, Fed.R.Civ.P.1 Plaintiffs
argued that the defendant is using his pleadings to make slanderous
statements against them and prevent them from resolving their
claims.
Plaintiffs sought similar relief in their Motion to Strike
Pleading “Response to Civil Suit” and Motion to Strike Defendant

1

Although the plaintiffs titled their motion as a Motion to
Compel, the plaintiffs are not seeking to compel disclosures or
discovery under Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P. Thus, it is unclear what
authority the plaintiffs are relying on.
Because a pro se
plaintiffs’ pleadings are generally 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 court will address the substance of the motion.

Ronald Todd Zeigler’s Defendant Response.2
motions,

the

court

determined

that

In the rulings on these

the

defendant’s

Response complied with Rule 8(a)(2) and (3).3

original

The court also found

that the Defendant Response to the Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended
Complaint was insufficient and allowed defendant Zeigler 21 days
from the date of the ruling (which was September 8, 2015) to file
an answer which complies with Rule 8.4

Defendant Zeigler has not

filed an answer to the Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended Complaint.
Because the plaintiffs have not asserted any new arguments or
requested different relief from their previously-filed motions,
this motion is redundant.
Accordingly,

the

Plaintiffs

Motion

to

Compel

Answer

of

Defendant filed by the James Spencer McLean and Mary Madeline
Hebert McLean is denied as moot.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 14, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Record document number 9 and 44, respectively.

3

Record document number 48.

4

Record document number 49. The Ruling on Motion to File
Amended Complaint directed the clerk of court to file the
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended Complaint, which became record
document number 50.
2