MasterBrand Cabinets, Inc. v. Stotler

Filing 14

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 11/21/17. (tob)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-651-RJC-DCK MASTERBRAND CABINETS, INC., Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL D. STOTLER, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration And/Or Objection To Magistrate’s Order” (Document No. 12) filed November 21, 2017. This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the undersigned will deny the motion. By the instant motion, Plaintiff objects to pro se Defendant being allowed thirty (30) days to respond to Plaintiff’s “Complaint” (Document No. 1). See (Document No. 10). The Complaint asserts a breach of contract claim and requests that “the Court enter preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring that Defendant cease working in his current position with Masco.” (Document No. 1, p.9). Plaintiff, however, has not filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff now states that it “intends to file a motion for preliminary injunction as soon as possible, but, . . . needs to conduct limited discovery to establish those facts through admissible evidence.” (Document No. 12, p.2). The undersigned has ordered pro se Defendant to file a response to the request for expedited discovery by November 29, 2017; but will respectfully decline to reverse the decision to allow the pro se Defendant additional time to respond to the Complaint. See (Document No. 13). IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration And/Or Objection To Magistrate’s Order” (Document No. 12) is DENIED. Signed: November 21, 2017 2

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?