EVES v. LEPAGE

Filing 36

PROCEDURAL ORDER & REPORT OF CONFERENCE granting without objection 33 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MARK W. EVES,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL R. LEPAGE,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 1:15-cv-300-GZS
)
)
)
)
)

PROCEDURAL ORDER & REPORT OF CONFERENCE

The Court held a telephonic conference of counsel to discuss Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33), a filing that Plaintiff made at 4:49 PM
yesterday. Attorney David Webbert appeared for Plaintiff. Attorneys Patrick Strawbridge and
Brian Weir appeared for Defendant.
The Court notes that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9), which was fully briefed
as of February 24, 2016, was initially set for oral argument at the request of the parties on March
1, 2016 (with an oral argument date of April 1, 2016). See March 1, 2015 Order & Notice (ECF
Nos. 22 & 23). At the parties’ joint request, the Court then rescheduled oral argument on
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for April 13, 2016. See March 4, 2016 Order & Notice (ECF Nos.
27 & 28). On April 11, 2016, this Court issued a its Notice, which requested both counsel to come
to the April 13th oral argument prepared to discuss the First Circuit’s decision in Caesars Mass.
Management Co. v. Crosby, 778 F.3d 327 (2015). See April 11, 2016 Notice (ECF No. 32).
Plaintiff then filed the pending Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No.
33).

In fairness to Defendant, the Court held a conference of counsel to discuss whether he
wished to move forward with today’s scheduled oral argument or wished additional time to
respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33). At the
conference, Defendant’s counsel indicated that Defendant takes the position the proposed
amendment of the complaint is futile but nonetheless would not oppose the amendment. Rather,
Defendant’s counsel indicated a desire to press forward with the oral argument today and have the
court apply the arguments made in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to the Second Amended
Complaint.
Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS WITHOUT OBJECTION Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33). Counsel for Plaintiff shall immediately
file the attached Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33-1) on the docket and the Court will
treat this as the operative pleading for purposes of the pending Motion to Dismiss.
The Court will set a deadline for answering the Second Amended Complaint after issuing
a decision on the Motion to Dismiss, if appropriate.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 13th day of April, 2016.

2