Tolley et al v. Menard, Inc. et al
Filing
18
ENTRY AND ORDER SETTING CONSOLIDATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 17 ) AND MOTION TO REMAND (TO BE FILED) AND STAYING BRIEFING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 16 ). the Court ORDERS the following consolidated briefing schedule on the Motion to Amend and anticipated motion to remand: Plaintiffs shall file a Motion to Remand this case to state courtwhich shall assume, for argument purposes, that the Motion to Amend will be grantedby no later than November 22, 2017; Menard shall file a consolidated response to the Motion to Amend and Motion to Remand by no later than December 6, 2017; Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated reply to Menards response by no later than December 13, 2017; Plaintiffs response to Menards Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16 )is hereby stayed; The Court will set a new deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment after the Court rules on the Motion to Amend and Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11/15/17. (pb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
DALE TOLLEY and
CHARLENE TOLLEY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MENARD, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:17-cv-157
Judge Thomas M. Rose
ENTRY AND ORDER SETTING CONSOLIDATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
(DOC. 17) AND MOTION TO REMAND (TO BE FILED) AND STAYING
BRIEFING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 16)
This case is before the Court on the Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint (“Motion to Amend”) (Doc. 17) filed by Plaintiffs Dale Tolley and Charlene
Tolley (“Plaintiffs”). If the Motion to Amend were granted, the diversity of citizenship,
upon which the Court’s jurisdiction is based, would be destroyed—since Plaintiffs and
a newly named Defendant in the First Amended Complaint are all Ohio residents.
Defendant Menard, Inc. (“Menard”) has informed the Court that it will oppose the
Motion to Amend and would oppose any motion to remand this case to state court on
the same grounds.
Therefore, in order to avoid duplicative briefing on these motions, the Court
ORDERS the following consolidated briefing schedule on the Motion to Amend and
anticipated motion to remand:
Plaintiffs shall file a Motion to Remand this case to state court—which
shall assume, for argument purposes, that the Motion to Amend will be
granted—by no later than November 22, 2017;
Menard shall file a consolidated response to the Motion to Amend and
Motion to Remand by no later than December 6, 2017;
Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated reply to Menard’s response by no later
than December 13, 2017;
Plaintiffs’ response to Menard’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16)
is hereby stayed;
The Court will set a new deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to the Motion
for Summary Judgment after the Court rules on the Motion to Amend and
Motion to Remand.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Wednesday, November 15, 2017.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?