McClellan v. Skytech Enterprises, LTD et al

Filing 34

ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White denying defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiff's motion to endorse additional defendant and joint motion to extend scheduling order dates ( 19 Motion to Dismiss Case for Failure to State a Claim ; 28 Moti on for Miscellaneous Relief; 29 Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Dates) andgranting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to extend the deadline for dispositive motions ( 31 Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Dates )(law, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JOHN MCCLELLAN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. CIV-12-202-RAW

(1) SKYTECH ENTERPRISES, LTD, d/b/a
SKYTECH SECURITY SERVICES,
(2) ASBERRY RAKESTRAW, individually,
and
(3) ANNA RAKESTRAW, indvidually,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter came before the court for a hearing on the pending motions on November 15,
2012. For the reasons stated at the hearing, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Docket No. 19] is
DENIED, Plaintiff’s motion to endorse additional defendant [Docket No. 28] is DENIED, and
the joint motion to extend scheduling order dates [Docket No. 29] is DENIED. Plaintiff filed his
Amended Complaint on August 17, 2012, adding as a party United Government Security
Officers of America. Plaintiff then failed to serve that party and now seeks leave to “endorse” it.
The United Government Security Officers of America is not a necessary party to this action*, and
as Plaintiff failed to serve that party, it is hereby dismissed from this action.
As stated at the hearing, Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausible.
*

Plaintiff “need not sue both his union and former employer in the same case, and he may
choose to seek damages against only one of the potential defendants, but in any event, ‘the case
he must prove is the same whether he sues one, the other, or both.’” Webb v. ABF Freight
System, Inc., 155 F.3d 1230, 1239 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing DelCostello v. International Broth. of
Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 165 (1983)).

See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Of course, Defendants may reurge their arguments in a motion for summary judgment. As the court mentioned, it is especially
skeptical on the issue of piercing the corporate veil, but Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to state
a claim that is plausible.
Now before the court is Defendants’ motion to extend the deadline for dispositive
motions to November 30, 2012 [Docket No. 31]. The motion is hereby GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. The court will extend the deadline to November 21, 2012. Plaintiff’s
Response deadline will be December 5, 2012. Defendants may then file a Reply no later than
December 11, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of November, 2012.

2