Roth v. Pollack et al

Filing 19

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINT TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM re 4 MOTION to Remand to State Court and for Sanctions, fees and costs filed by Ted Roth, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 17 Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as unppposed filed by Ted Roth Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 11/29/2016 (Guirola, Louis)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

TED ROTH, M.D.

PLAINTIFF

V.

CAUSE NO. 3:16cv849-LG-JCG

ALAN M. POLLACK;
ROBINSON BROG LEINWANT
GREEENE GENOVESE & GLUCK, P.C.;
MAXEY WANN, PLLC; WILLIAM G. HUSSEY;
S. MARK WANN; XYZ CORP 1-10; and
JOHN DOES 1-10

DEFENDANTS

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
PROVIDE SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM
BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion to Remand and for Sanctions and
Attorneys Fees [4] filed by Ted Roth without a supporting memorandum. In his
Motion Plaintiff states that “due to the straightforward issue in this motion and the
simplicity of the jurisdictional question, Plaintiff request the Court waive the
requirements of Local Rule 7.1 requiring a memorandum of authorities.” See
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ¶ 1. Plaintiff did not file a separate motion as
required by Local Rule 7(b) and no order allowing Plaintiff to forgo the
memorandum brief requirements of Rule 7(b)(4) has been entered. For the
following reasons, Plaintiff shall file a memorandum brief in support of his Motion.
Rule 7(b)(4) of the Local Uniform Civil Rules of the United States District
Courts for the Northern District of Mississippi and the Southern District of
Mississippi provides, “At the time the motion is served, other than motions or

-1-

applications that may be heard ex parte or those involving necessitous or urgent
matters, counsel for movant must file a memorandum brief in support of the
motion.” (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s Motion is essentially a dispositive motion
that calls into question the jurisdiction of the Court. Defendant’s response and
memorandum tend to demonstrate that the “jurisdictional question” is neither
straightforward or simple.
Pursuant to Local Rule 16(b)(1)(B) the case has been stayed pending a ruling
on the Motion to remand. And while a motion to dismiss has been filed on behalf of
several of the Defendants, the question of the Court’s jurisdiction must first be
resolved. See e.g. Harden v. Field Memorial Community Hospital, 516 F.Supp.2d
600 (S.D.Miss.2007), aff'd, 265 Fed.Appx. 405 (5th Cir.2008); See also Andrews v.
Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 2016 WL 4204044, at *2 (S.D. Miss. May 17,
2016).
Roth is ordered to file a memorandum in support of his Motion to Remand
and for Sanctions and Attorneys Fees within five days of the date of this Order.
The time for Defendants to file a supplemental response and memorandum brief
will begin to run on the date that Plaintiff’s memorandum is filed. A rebuttal brief
may be filed within the time allowed by the local rules.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Ted Roth is
ordered to file a memorandum brief in support of his Motion to Remand and for
Sanctions and Attorneys Fees [4] within five days of the date of this Order.

-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the text Order
entered November 22, 2016 is set aside. Plaintiff’s Motion for additional time to file
a Reply brief is denied as moot.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 29th day of November, 2016.
s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-