Fulford et al v. Climbtek, Inc.

Filing 83

ORDER: Within seven (7) days of this Order Plaintiffs shall file a Motion to Substitute the proposed Third Amending Complaint Complaint [sic] with a proposed comprehensive pleading as listed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 5/9/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MARVIN FULFORD, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-16-BAJ-EWD

CLIMBTEK, INC., ET AL.

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Leave to File Third Amending Complaint,1 filed by
plaintiffs Marvin Fulford and Rena Fulford (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). The proposed Third
Amending Complaint Complaint [sic]2 is not, however, a comprehensive pleading and instead
makes reference to amendments and additions to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint,3 Amended
Complaint,4 and Second Amending Complaint.5
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within seven (7) days of this Order Plaintiffs shall file
a Motion to Substitute the proposed Third Amending Complaint Complaint [sic]6 with a proposed
pleading that is a comprehensive complaint which includes all Plaintiffs’ numbered allegations, as

1

R. Doc. 78.
R. Doc. 78-1.
3
R. Doc. 1.
4
R. Doc. 3.
5
R. Doc. 11. The Court notes that on November 2, 2016, this Court issued a Notice and Order requiring Plaintiffs to
file a motion to substitute the Second Amending Complaint with a proposed pleading that is a comprehensive
complaint that properly sets forth the citizenship of all parties, which would become the operative complaint in this
matter. (R. Doc. 29). In response to the Court’s November 2, 2016 Notice and Order, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to
Substitute Second Amending Complaint (R. Doc. 32), which was denied without prejudice because the proposed
pleading failed to adequately allege the citizenship of the parties. (R. Doc. 34). Plaintiffs, however, were given seven
days from the date of the Order to re-file a motion to substitute with a comprehensive, proposed pleading that
adequately alleges the citizenship of all parties. (R. Doc. 34 at 4). A review of the record in this case shows that
Plaintiffs never filed a subsequent motion to substitute the Second Amending Complaint with a comprehensive
proposed pleading that adequately alleges the citizenship of the parties.
6
R. Doc. 78-1.
2

revised, supplemented, and/or amended, and adequately alleges the citizenship of all parties,7
which will become the operative complaint in this matter without reference to any other document
in the record.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any party opposing the Motion for Leave to File Third
Amending Complaint shall file an opposition memorandum within 21 days of the original filing
of the Motion for Leave.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 9, 2017.

S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

See, R. Doc. 34.

2