Liptok et al v. Bank of America

Filing 41

ORDER - Since the pltfs have not made the showing required to secure relief sought in these motions and the motions are not accompanied by a brief which would have explained the pltfs entitlement to relief, as required by the Local Rules, the motion for court order for payment of expert services (Doc. 33 .), and motion to demand information, (Doc. 34 .), are DENIED, without prejudice to resubmission if the pleadings are accompanied by a brief explaining the pltfs legal entitlement to the relie f that they seek. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, however, that Bank of America shall make initial disclosures to the pltfs, as required by Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on or before November 30, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on November 2, 2015. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN JOSEPH LIPTOK, et al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

Civil No. 3:15-CV-156

(Judge Munley)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS;
The plaintiffs, who are representing themselves in this lawsuit, filed a
complaint on January 23, 2015, which named the Bank of America as the defendant.
In their complaint the plaintiffs recited that they own and reside in one half of a
duplex property in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1.) According to the
plaintiffs, the other half of this duplex is owned by the defendant who has failed to
care for and maintain the property, despite agreeing to do so. (Id.) As a result of this
alleged neglect and inaction by the defendant, the plaintiffs allege that their property
has been damaged. Asserting that the defendant has breached promises made to them
to properly maintain the property, the plaintiffs have sued Bank of America. (Id.)

1

This case is assigned to the undersigned for pre-trial management, and we are
committed to assisting all parties in reaching a prompt and fair resolution of this
matter. We also understand that the plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, and, therefore,
we are consistently endeavoring to making allowances for their pro se status and are
liberally construing the requests and pleadings that they may file. However, in order
to ensure the fair administration of justice we must treat all parties equally, and insist
that all parties meet certain minimum requirements. These minimal requirements are
set forth in the Rules of this Court, and in the Standing Practice Order filed in this
case. Among these requirements is an obligation that parties who file motions also
file briefs in support of those motions, explaining the legal basis for their requests.
We remind all parties of this obligation because we have before us two motions
filed by the plaintiffs. One of these motions seeks unusual relief, an order directing
the defendant to pay the cost of any plaintiff expert witnesses. (Doc. 33.) The second
motion seeks to compel the discovery of information. (Doc. 34.) While the plaintiffs
filed these motions, their pleadings were unaccompanied by any brief explaining the
legal basis for their requests. This failure to file a brief has consequences for the
plaintiff since we are entitled to deem the plaintiff to have withdrawn a motion when
he fails to properly support that motion by filing a brief in a timely fashion. See, e.g.,
Salkeld v. Tennis, 248 F. App'x 341 (3d Cir.2007) (affirming dismissal of motion
2

under Local Rule 7.5); Booze v. Wetzel, 1:12-CV-1307, 2012 WL 6137561 (M.D.
Pa. Nov. 16, 2012) report and recommendation adopted, 1:CV-12-1307, 2012 WL
6138315 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2012); Breslin v. Dickinson Twp., 1:09–CV–1396, 2011
WL 1577840 (M.D.Pa. Apr.26, 2011) Prinkey v. Tennis, No. 09–52, 2010 WL
4683757 (M.D.Pa. Nov.10, 2010) (dismissal under Local Rule 7.5); Griffin v.
Lackawanna County Prison Board, No. 07–1683, 2008 WL 4533685 (M.D.Pa.Oct.6,
2008) (dismissal under Local Rule 7.6).
Since the plaintiffs have not made the showing required to secure relief sought
in these motions and the motions are not accompanied by a brief which would have
explained the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, as required by the Local Rules, the
motion for court order for payment of expert services (Doc. 33.), and motion to
demand information, (Doc. 34.), are DENIED, without prejudice to resubmission if
the pleadings are accompanied by a brief explaining the plaintiffs’ legal entitlement
to the relief that they seek.1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, however, that Bank of
America shall make initial disclosures to the plaintiffs, as required by Rule 26(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on or before November 30, 2015. These initial
disclosures may well address the substance of the plaintiffs’ initial discovery requests.

The defendant is also advised that the failure to timely submit briefs in
support of their pretrial motions may result in the dismissal of those motions.
1

3

So ordered this 2d day of November 2015.

S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

4