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, )

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?