Rimer et al v. Aaron's, Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 18 Motion to Amend/Correct; adopting Report and Recommendations re 22 . Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 5/24/2017. (BDG, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
KYLE RIMER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AARON’S, INC. d/b/a AARON’S,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-155
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge Clifton L. Corker

ORDER

On May 3, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Clifton L. Corker filed his Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 22) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Magistrate Judge Corker
recommended that Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the scheduling order and for leave to file
amended complaint (Doc. 18) be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 22.) Specifically,
Magistrate Judge Corker recommended that Plaintiffs be allowed to amend their complaint past
the scheduling order deadline to add a claim that Defendant engaged in deceptive acts in
violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by claiming that it had trained
and experienced technicians to install its products upon delivery. (Id.) Magistrate Judge Corker
recommended that Plaintiffs’ motion be denied to the extent it seeks to add a claim for violation
of the TCPA for creating the misleading impression that product delivery would result in a
complete installation. (Id.)

Neither party has filed any objections to Magistrate Judge Corker’s Report and
Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a reviewed the Report and
Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Corker’s wellreasoned conclusions.
Accordingly, the Court will ACCEPT and ADOPT Magistrate Judge Corker’s Report
and Recommendations (Doc. 22) and will ORDER as follows:
1.

Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the scheduling order and for leave to file amended

complaint (Doc. 18) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks leave to file an
amended complaint after the scheduling order deadline to add a TCPA claim against
Defendant alleging that it created a false and misleading impression that delivery and
installation of its products would be performed by a trained and experienced technician;
2.

Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 18) is DENIED IN PART to the extent it seeks to add a

TCPA claim for creating a false and misleading impression that its delivery and set up
would result in complete installation;
3.

Plaintiffs’ revised amended complaint (Doc. 26) is hereby DEEMED FILED;

and

1

Magistrate Judge Corker specifically advised the parties that they had fourteen days in which to
object to the Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive the right to
appeal. (Doc. 22, at 9 n.4); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
148–51 (1985) (noting that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court
review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard,
when neither party objects to those findings”). Even taking into account three additional days for
service provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), the period in which the parties could
timely file any objections has now expired.
2

4.

Given the June 5, 2017, discovery deadline, the parties are ORDERED to file a

joint status report within seven days addressing any additional discovery that would need
to occur as a result of the amended complaint.2
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

The parties are reminded, however, that Plaintiffs conceded in their motion to amend that
discovery on their TCPA claim “should not require a renewal of Plaintiffs[’] depositions and
time exists for Defendant to serve additional interrogatories or requests for production.” (Doc.
19, at 10.)
3