Miller et al v. AutoZone, Inc. et al

Filing 24

ORDER finding as moot 22 Motion for Extension of Time to File; granting 23 Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 12/30/11. (pb1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MARY E. MILLER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

:

Case No. 3:11-cv-237
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vs:
AutoZone, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs’
Opposition Memorandum to Defendant Autozone’s Answer to Complaint (Doc. No. 22). No such
pleading is required by law or permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the
Motion is denied as moot.
This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave of Court to Respond to
Autozone, Inc.’s, Pleadings of Other Affirmative Defenses after Discovery is Completed (Doc. No.
23). This is the usual course of proceeding in federal civil matters. Accordingly, the Motion is
granted.
December 30, 2011.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

1