Roberts et al v. St. Amand et al
Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 65 Motion ; denying 66 Motion for Discovery; granting 82 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 80 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ( Responses due by 5/30/2017) (Halley, Taylor)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-10760-GAO
PETER ST. AMAND, et al.,
April 26, 2017
This Order resolves the following pending motions:
1. The plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification and for Temporary Abeyance of Return of
Proof of Service (dkt. no. 65) is DENIED.
2. The plaintiff’s Motion for Limited Discovery and for In-Court Inspection of the
Current Address for the Defendant Peter St. Amand (dkt. no. 66) is DENIED.
Although summonses have been issued for St. Amand numerous times over the
course of this litigation, none have been returned executed. Most recently, on
November 29, 2016, the Court granted the plaintiff a further extension to effectuate
service of process, stating that failure to file proof of service on any remaining
defendant by December 12, 2016, would result in those claims being dismissed and
warning that no further extensions would be permitted. The plaintiff did not file
proof of service for St. Amand by that date. Consequently, any claims against St.
Amand are dismissed.
3. The plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time for Filing an Opposition to the
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 82) is GRANTED to the extent the
plaintiff requests the deadline to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss be
extended until May 30, 2017. Given the age of the case and of the motion to dismiss,
the Court is not inclined to grant any further extensions of time.
The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order and the docket sheet to the plaintiff at the address
registered with CM/ECF.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?