Utility Systems Services, Inc. v. Caregard Warranty Services, Inc. et al

Filing 23

RULING : The #22 Motion to Substitute Supplemental and Amending Petition on Open Account, for Damages and Injunctive Relief is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to file a Motion to Substitute which attaches a comprehensive proposed pleading. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 9/30/2016. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UTILITY SYSTEMS
SERVICES, INC.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 16-505-SDD-EWD
CAREGUARD WARRANTY
SERVICES, INC., AFG TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC, AND R. WRIGHT BREWER III
RULING ON MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDING
PETITION ON OPEN ACCOUNT, FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Before the court is a Motion to Substitute Supplemental and Amending Petition on Open
Account, for Damages and Injunctive Relief (the “Motion to Substitute”)1 filed by Plaintiff, Utility
Systems Services, Inc., d/b/a an Utilistar Process Automation (“Plaintiff”).
On September 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental and
Amending Petition on Open Account, for Damages and Injunctive Relief (the “Motion for Leave”),
seeking to file a Supplemental and Amending Petition.2 On September 22, 2016, this court ordered
Plaintiff to file a Motion to Substitute the proposed Supplemental and Amending Petition with a
comprehensive proposed pleading which would (if the Motion for Leave was granted) become
Plaintiff’s operative Petition.3
On September 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Substitute.4 Attached to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Substitute is a proposed First Supplemental and Amending Petition on Open Account,
for Damages and Injunctive Relief.5 The proposed pleading “incorporates by reference as if fully
stated herein all prior allegations and claims made in [Plaintiff’s] Original Petition and

1

R. Doc. 22.
R. Doc. 8.
3
R. Doc. 13.
4
R. Doc. 22.
5
R. Doc. 22-1.
2

supplements and amends [Plaintiff’s] Original Petition….”6 As such, the proposed pleading is not
comprehensive and is not in compliance with this court’s September 22, 2016 Order.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Supplemental and Amending Petition on
Open Account, for Damages and Injunctive Relief7 is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff’s
right to file a Motion to Substitute which attaches a comprehensive proposed pleading (i.e., a
proposed pleading that, standing alone, constitutes Plaintiff’s operative Petition without reference
to or incorporation of any other previously filed pleading). The Motion for Leave will be
considered upon the filing of a Motion to Substitute that complies with this court’s September 22,
2016 Order.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 30, 2016.

S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7

R. Doc. 22-1, ¶ 1.
R. Doc. 22.