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)

Download PDF
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.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?