The Pastry Portal Inc. v. Siefke et al

Filing 41

ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve Limited Discovery (Doc. No. 13 ) and Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 40 ). For good cause shown, Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. [40 ]) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court, as set forth in the Court's prior Order (Doc. No. 39 ), no later than April 5, 2024. Pending the filing of such a complaint, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve Limited Discovery is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry on 3/27/2024. (acw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)
THE PASTRY PORTAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ELIZABETH SIEFKE, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:23-cv-00135
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Limited
Discovery (Doc. No. 13) and Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 40).
For good cause shown, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 40) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint sufficient to invoke the subjectmatter jurisdiction of this Court, as set forth in the Court’s prior Order (Doc. No. 39), no
later than April 5, 2024. Pending the filing of such a complaint, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to Serve Limited Discovery is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Caroline H. Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry
United States Magistrate Judge

1

Procedure on Objections
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections within FOURTEEN days after being served with this Order. Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to SEVENTEEN days if this Order is being
served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), or (F).
Such objections shall specify the portions of the Order objected to and shall be
accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Order is based
in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting
party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as
all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned
District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on
appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947,
949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).

2