EL BEY v. ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL et al

Filing 99

ORDER denying 84 Motion for Default Judgment ; denying 86 Motion to Strike; denying 86 Motion for Summary Judgment ; denying 86 Motion for Default Judgment ; and denying 87 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 3/29/2017. (km)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CLIFFORD JEFFERSON EL BEY,
•

•

Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No.: 15-cv-02537 (PGS)
ORDER

v.
ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON UNIVERSITY
HOSPITAL.et al,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on a number of Plaintiffs motions: (1) for default
judgment; (2) judgment on the pleadings; (3) summary judgment, (4) judgment as a matter of law
(ECF No. 84); and Plaintiffs motion to strike, and for summary judgment (ECF No. 86); and
Plaintiffs motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 87). Each motion is addressed below.
*

Motion for default judgment (ECF No. 84). Defendant Robert Wood Johnson

filed its answer to the Complaint on January 4, 2016 and is not in default. As such, the motion
for default judgment is denied.
*

Motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 84, 86). These motions are premature

because discovery has not been completed, and Plaintiff has failed to submit a statement of
undisputed facts. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is denied.
*

Motion for judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 84). Such a motion can only be

decided when there are no issues of material fact. Robert Wood Johnson has denied all of the
allegations in the Complaint, and has asserted over fifteen defenses. Therefore, the motion for
judgment on the pleadings is denied.

*

Motion for judgment as a matter of law (ECF No. 84). This motion appears to be brought

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50.

Rule 50 motions are ordinarily filed after a jury trial. Therefore,

this motion is premature since the case is still in the discovery phase. The motion is denied.
*

Motion to strike the answer of Robert Wood Johnson (ECF No. 86). Pursuant to

Fed. Civ. R. P. 12, the court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or where
discovery has not provided. There has been no showing of same in Robert Wood Johnson’s
responsive pleadings. The motion to strike is denied.
*

Motion to stay discovery (ECF. No. 87). At the hearing held on March 21, 2017,

Plaintiff indicated that he was withdrawing this motion. As such, the motion to stay is denied as
withdrawn.
The Court having fully considered the submissions of the parties and having heard oral
argument;
IT IS on this

th
29

day of March, 2017;

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for Default Judgment, Judgment on the Pleadings,
Summary Judgment and Judgment as a Matter of Law (ECF No. 84) is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike and motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
86) is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 87) is denied as withdrawn.

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.