REESE et al v. POOK & POOK, LLC et al

Filing 86

ORDER THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO RENEW, REINSTATE, AND/OR REMOVE FROM BANKRUPTCY COURT THE CLAIMS AS AGAINST DEFTS POOK & POOK, RON POOK, DEBRA POOK, & JAMES POOK IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, PLFF S SHALL FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ETC. ALL DISCOVERY SHALL TERMINATE ON OR BEFORE 4/17/2017. PLFFS' MOTION FOR TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE (DOC. #79) IS DENIED AS MOOT.SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 2/16/17. 2/17/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CARTER P. REESE, et al.,
Plaintiffs

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

vs.
POOK & POOK, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 14-5715

ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th

day of February, 2017, upon consideration of the

plaintiffs’ motion to renew, reinstate, and/or remove from Bankruptcy Court the claims as
against Defendants Pook & Pook, Ron Pook, Debra Pook, and James Pook (Document
#62), the response of those defendants in opposition thereto (Document #75), the reply
brief of the plaintiffs (Document #82), and the defendants’ sur-reply (Document #83),
and after construing the motion as one for leave to amend the complaint, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1. Within five days of the date of this Order, the plaintiffs shall file a second
amended complaint containing the claims found in the stricken Document #73 with the
following exception: Defendants Jay Lowe, Connie & Jay Lowe Antiques, and Mike
Caffarella shall not be included in Count IV.1

1

On January 27, 2016, the breach of contract claim in the first amended complaint was
dismissed against Defendants Jay Lowe, Connie & Jay Lowe Antiques, and Mike Caffarella.
See Document #50.

2. Defendants Pook & Pook, Ron Pook, Debra Pook, and James Pook shall
respond to the second amended complaint within ten days of its filing.
3. All discovery shall terminate on or before Monday, April 17, 2017.
4. The plaintiffs’ motion for telephone status conference (Document #79) is
DENIED as moot.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lawrence F. Stengel
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.

2