Varney v. InfoCision, Inc. et al
Filing
32
OPINION & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 motion for extension of time to file response. Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to file an amended response to 17 motion to dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 6/25/13. (rew)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SONYA M. VARNEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Civil No. 2:13-CV-346
Magistrate Judge King
INFOCISION, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This action was removed to this Court on April 11, 2013 on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Notice of Removal,
Doc. No. 1, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 18,
2013, Doc. No. 5.
On May 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint, Doc. No. 13, which rendered moot defendants’ motion to
dismiss the original Complaint.
No. 28, p. 2.
See Preliminary Pretrial Order, Doc.
Nevertheless, plaintiffs filed a response to
defendants’ motion to dismiss, Doc. No. 14, on the same day that they
filed the Amended Complaint.
On May 15, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, Doc. No. 17.
Plaintiffs filed a response to that motion,
Doc. No. 18, and defendants filed a reply, Doc. No. 24.
This matter
is now before the Court, with the consent of the parties pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(c), for consideration of plaintiffs’ motion for an
extension of time to file a response to defendants’ motion to dismiss,
Doc. No. 17.
Plaintiffs’ Motion, Doc. No. 25.
Plaintiffs argue that,
when their response to defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, “a now former employee of Plaintiffs’ Counsel inadvertently
filed a previously filed document [i.e., Doc. No. 14] instead of the
correct document.”
Id. at p. 2.
Plaintiffs have attached to their
motion the “correct document” that “should have been filed” on May 28,
2013 in response to defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint; a copy of the response with an updated certificate of
service has also been filed as Doc. No. 26.
Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion, arguing that the proposed
response is untimely under S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(2) and that
plaintiffs failed to act promptly in discovering their error.
Defendants’ Response, Doc. No. 29, pp. 2-3.
To permit plaintiffs to
now correct their error, defendants argue, will work to their
prejudice because they have expended time and money in filing their
reply.
Defendants also ask that, if plaintiffs are permitted to file
a new response, defendants should be awarded attorneys’ fees in
connection with the filing of their original reply.
Id.
Plaintiffs respond, Doc. No. 30, arguing, inter alia, that
defendants should not be awarded attorneys’ fees because defendants’
counsel knew of plaintiffs’ mistake prior to filing their reply and
failed to bring that mistake to plaintiffs’ attention.
Id. at p. 2.
Specifically, plaintiffs argue that defendants “pointed out in [their]
Reply that the document filed as Plaintiffs’ Doc. 18 appeared to be
the same as a previous document filed by the Plaintiffs” and that the
document had the same “Certificate of Service” date as the previously
filed document.
Id.
“[T]rial courts have inherent power to control their dockets,”
Anthony v. BTR Automotive Sealing Sys., Inc., 339 F.3d 506, 516 (6th
Cir. 2003) (citing Gould v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp., Nos. 99-1544,
2
99-1707, 2000 WL 1234334 (6th Cir. Aug. 25, 2000)); see also
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962) (trial courts
possess “inherent power” to “manage their own affairs so as to achieve
an orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”); Dallman
Acquisition, LLC v. Dallman, No. 2:10-cv-007, 2011 WL 798093, at *2
(S.D. Ohio Mar. 1, 2011), and this Court prefers that cases, to the
extent possible, be resolved on the merits of the parties’ claims and
defenses.
Cf Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559 (6th Cir.
1986) (“[T]he thrust of Rule 15 is to reinforce the principle that
cases ‘should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities
of pleadings.’”) (quoting Tefft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th Cir.
1982)).
Because plaintiffs have already filed a response to
defendants’ motion to dismiss, see Doc. No. 18, the Court construes
Plaintiffs’ Motion as a motion to amend the previously filed response.
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of
this Court do not expressly provide a vehicle for the filing of an
amended response beyond the time permitted for filing a response to a
motion, see S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2, the Court finds it appropriate to
permit plaintiffs to amend their response to the motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.
To do otherwise would be to exalt technicalities
to an unwarranted degree.
The Court further concludes that plaintiffs
were not dilatory in discovering their filing error or in filing
Plaintiffs’ Motion, that defendants will not suffer undue prejudice by
reason of the amendment of plaintiffs’ response, and that, under the
circumstances, an award of attorneys’ fees is not warranted.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion, Doc. No. 25, is GRANTED in part.
Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to file an amended response to
3
defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 17.
The
Court notes that plaintiffs’ amended response has been filed. Doc. No.
26.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to indicate on the docket that Doc. No. 26
is an Amended Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 17.
Defendants may have fourteen (14) days to reply to plaintiffs’ Amended
Response.
June 25, 2013
s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?