Hermes et al v. Lubic et al (PLR2)

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting #19 Motion to Set Aside Default; granting #21 Motion to Amend Answer to Complaint. The entry of default against ONeill Transport by the Clerk of Court #17 is VACATED. Defendants Fahrudin Hasanovic, MHM Trucking, and ONeill Transport Services SHALL FILE their answer and/or amended answer, in full, on or before March 27, 2014.Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley, Jr on 03/20/2014. (KAW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
LATHAN & PATRICIA HERMES and
LINDA BOLINEAU,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RIZO LUBIC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:13-CV-416-PLR-CCS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is Defendant O’Neill Transport Services, Inc.’s Motion for Relief
from Entry of Default [Doc. 19] and Defendants Fahrudin Hasanovic and MHM Trucking LLC’s
Motion to Amend Answer to Complaint [Doc. 21]. All parties have signified their agreement
that the Court should grant the Motion for Relief from Entry of Default [Doc. 19] by endorsing
an agreed order stating the same [Doc. 19-3]. Moreover, the time for filing a response in
opposition to the Motion to Amend [Doc. 21] has expired without any party opposing the relief
sought.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion for Relief from Entry of Default [Doc. 19]
and Motion to Amend Answer to Complaint [Doc. 21] are well-taken, and they are GRANTED.
The entry of default against O’Neill Transport by the Clerk of Court [Doc. 17] is VACATED.

Defendants Fahrudin Hasanovic, MHM Trucking, and O’Neill Transport Services SHALL
FILE their answer and/or amended answer, in full,1 on or before March 27, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

1

Defendants Fahrudin Hasanovic and MHM Trucking LLC did not comply with Local Rule 15.1 by attaching of
their proposed amended complaint to the motion. However, they identified the language which they proposed to add
to their answer in their motion. Under the circumstances the Court finds that it is appropriate to excuse these
Defendants’ non-compliance. However, the Defendants are DIRECTED to comply with Local Rule 15.1’s
additional requirement that: “Any amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter of course or upon a motion to
amend, shall, except by leave of Court, reproduce the entire pleading as amended and may not incorporate any prior
pleading by reference.” E.D. Tenn. L.R. 15.1 (emphasis added).
2