THORNTON et al v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH et al

Filing 4

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Notice of Removal, filed by CITY OF PITTSBURGH, KIM LONG, ROBERT J. MCCAUGHAN, JOSIE DIMON, RONALD W. ROMANO, MARK A. BOCIAN, ANDREW LAGOMARSINO, NORMAN AUVIL, RON CURRY by NORMAN AUVIL, MARK A. BOCIAN, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, RON CURRY, JOSIE DIMON, ANDREW LAGOMARSINO, KIM LONG, ROBERT J. MCCAUGHAN, RONALD W. ROMANO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Kennedy, Michael)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THERESA E. THORNTON and JEREMIAH
C. MITCHELL, as Co-Administrators of the
Estate of Curtis L. Mitchell, deceased
CIVIL ACTION No. 10-cv-01436
Plaintiffs,
v.

MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME

CITY OF PITTSBURGH; ROBERT J.
McCAUGHAN;
MARK
A
BOCIAN;
RONALD W. ROMANO; JOSIE DIMON;
ANDREW LAGOMARSINO; KIM LONG;
NORMAN
AUVIL;
RON
CURRY;
ALLEGHENY COUNTY; AND COUNTY OF
ALLEGHENY
DEPARTMENT
OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES

Filed on behalf of Defendants
Electronically Filed
Judge Gary L. Lancaster

Defendants.

MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
AND NOW come the Defendants, the City of Pittsburgh; Robert J. McCaughan;
Mark A. Bocian; Ronald V. Romano; Josie Dimon; Andrew Lagomarsino; Kim Long;
Norman Auvil; and Ron Curry, by and through their undersigned counsel, and file the
within Motion for Enlargement of Time and in support thereof, aver the following:
1.

The instant matter is one for injuries and damages incurred by Plaintiffs’ decedent

Curtis L. Mitchell.
2.

Plaintiffs claim injuries and damages as a result of the alleged improper actions of

the defendants and further those actions, in part, are alleged to be violations of Plaintiffs’
decedent’s constitutional rights.

3.

Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a Complaint in the Court of Common

Pleas of Allegheny County on September 30, 2010. The Complaint alleges injuries and
harm arising from events occurring on or about February 6, 2010.
4.

The original Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs did not contain allegations that

would give rise to a cause of action that would arise from a violation of the laws or the
Constitution of the United States of America.
5.

On October 1, 2010 (one day after the original Complaint was filed) the Plaintiffs

filed an Amended (Corrected) Complaint. The Amended (Corrected) Complaint raises
claims that did not exist in the original Complaint. Those new claims invoked the
jurisdiction of Federal Courts.
6.

On October 4, 2010 the City of Pittsburgh was served, by a sheriff’s service, with

the original Complaint.
7.

On October 6, 2010 John F. Doherty, Associate City Solicitor entered his

Appearance on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh.
8.

On October 22, 2010 Defendant, Allegheny County, was served. A review of the

court docket appears to indicate that Allegheny County was served the original
Complaint and not the Amended (Corrected) Complaint.
9.

On October 25, 2010 the individual defendants, (McCaughan, Bocian, Romano,

Dimon, Lagomarsino, Long, Auvil, and Curry) who are employees of the City of
Pittsburgh accepted service of the Amended (Corrected) Complaint.
10.

On October 27, 2010 these Defendants removed the Action to Federal Court.

11.

The Amended (Corrected) Complaint contains Two Hundred and Twenty Eight

(228) allegations.

12.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure these Defendants would be required

to file a Responsive Pleading to the Amended (Corrected Complaint) within seven (7)
days of its removal. Accordingly and pursuant to such rule, the Responsive Pleading
would be due no later than November 3, 2010.
13.

Further, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a waiver of Service of

Summons would allow and provide for a defendant to have sixty days (60) from the date
of receipt of a Complaint to file a Responsive Pleading.
14.

As these Defendants have Accepted Service of the Amended (Corrected)

Complaint on October 25, 2010 for the individually named Defendants, and given the
extensive number of allegations in the Amended (Corrected) Complaint, and further
given the need for the other Defendants to file Responsive Pleadings, these Defendants
move for an Enlargement of Time to file a Responsive Pleading.
15.

As the Amended (Corrected) Complaint was filed on October 1, 2010, these

Defendants request that their time to respond to the Amended (Corrected) Complaint be
enlarged to account for the sixty (60) day time period from that date.
16.

Accordingly, these Defendants request until December 1, 2010 to file their

Responsive Pleading.
17.

Counsel for Plaintiff does not oppose this motion.

18.

Counsel for the other Defendants consents to this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/John F. Doherty
John F. Doherty
Associate City Solicitor
Pa. I.D. #56418
/s/Michael E. Kennedy
Michael E. Kennedy
Assistant City Solicitor
Pa. I.D. #52780

/s/Daniel D. Regan
Daniel D. Regan
City Solicitor
Pa. I.D. #89141
City of Pittsburgh Department of Law
313 City-County Building
414 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
[phone]