Pare v. Schneider Transport, Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER terminating 18 Motion to Amend.The Court will therefore FIND the Order to Show Cause [Doc. 23] is SATISFIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 11/9/2018. (SAC, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA

THOMAS PARE and SALLY PARE,
Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN DOE and SCHNEIDER NATIONAL
CARRIERS, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:18-cv-137-CLC-SKL

ORDER
On October 18, 2018, Plaintiffs Thomas and Sally Pare (“Plaintiffs”) filed a motion to
amend their complaint [Doc. 18]. On October 22, 2018, the Court entered an Order requiring (1)
the parties to confer in good faith to see if they could agree to all or part of the proposed amendment
and (2) Plaintiffs to file a new motion to amend by November 1, 2018, if necessary [Doc. 19]. The
November 1 deadline came and went without any word from Plaintiffs.
Still having heard nothing by November 5, 2018, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause
[Doc. 21]. The Order gave Plaintiffs seven days to respond and show cause why they failed to
comply with the Court’s October 22 Order. Two days later, the parties filed a joint motion seeking
to substitute Defendant Schneider National Carriers, Inc., for Schneider Transport, Inc., which the
Court granted [Docs. 22 & 23]. The following day, Plaintiffs responded to the Order to Show
Cause. In the response, counsel for Plaintiffs explains how the parties conferred and agreed to
substitute the correct corporate defendant and to remove the John Doe defendant from the
complaint. Counsel then writes:

[B]ased upon the discussions, Plaintiffs’ counsel felt it best to
amend his pleading for the amended complaint based on discussions
and removal of certain aspects of John Doe. As such, the
Amendment and revisions process took Plaintiffs’ counsel outside
the time period prescribed by the Court. The failure to meet the
deadline is in no way a dereliction of duty, but rather Plaintiffs’
counsel’s attempt to streamline the case and issues to be presented
to the Court in an upcoming Motion to Amend the Complaint.
Furthermore, Plaintiff wants to confer with defense counsel
on the new Amended Complaint so as to abide by the requirement
of consultation regarding the Motion to Amend the Complaint.
[Doc. 24 at Page ID # 87].
In other words, Plaintiffs need more time because the conferral process led to the resolution
of some issues and prompted them to make changes that will affect the pending motion to amend
and proposed amended complaint. The Court credits the parties for cooperating and assumes the
cooperation will continue, now that it has been shown to bear fruit, without the requirement of
further court intervention. The Court will therefore FIND the Order to Show Cause [Doc. 23] is
SATISFIED. In the future, though, Plaintiffs should not simply ignore a court-ordered deadline
they are unable to meet. The better practice, and the one that will not lead to sanctions against the
parties and/or counsel, is to seek relief from the Court prior to the expiration of the deadline or the
entry of an order to show cause.
Because Plaintiffs have indicated they will file a new motion to amend, if necessary, the
Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Plaintiffs’ pending motion to amend [Doc. 18].
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/fâátÇ ^A _xx
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2