Bomber v. Communicare Michigan LLC et al
ORDER (1) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' 29 Motion to Dismiss; (2) Directing Plaintiff to File a Second Amended Complaint; and (3) Referring the Case to Magistrate Judge for Settlement Conference. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 16-cv-11943
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
LLC et al..
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #29); (2) DIRECTING
PLAINTIFF TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT;
AND (3) REFERRING THE CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
On January 30, 2017, Plaintiff Eugene Bomber (“Bomber”) filed an Amended
Complaint against Defendants Communicare Michigan LLC (“Communicare”) and
Tampa Bay Holdings, LLC (“Tampa Bay”). (See ECF #27.) On February 27, 2017,
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). (See ECF
#29.) Bomber responded to the Motion on March 20, 2017. (See ECF #30.) The
Court held a hearing on the Motion on May 30, 2017.
As explained on the record at the hearing, the Motion is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART, and the Court directs Bomber to file a Second
Amended Complaint that addresses the Court’s concerns identified at the hearing.
Bomber shall file the Second Amended Complaint no later than 21 days after the
date of the settlement conference described below. Defendants shall file an answer
or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint within 21 days of that
complaint being filed.
Finally, the Court ORDERS that this matter be referred to U.S. Magistrate
Judge Davis for a settlement conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 31, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on May 31, 2017, by electronic means and/or
s/Holly A. Monda
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?