Fluharty et al v. City of Clarksburg
ORDER/OPINION Plaintiffs' "Motion to Compel Disclosures" 52 is DENIED AS MOOT to the extent it requests that the Court order Defendants to comply with the required disclosure of insurance information. The undersigned declines to ru le on whether Plaintiffs should receive an extension of time within which to file their Second Amended Complaint. The hearing scheduled for Tuesday, August 5, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. is hereby CANCELLED. The Clerk is directed to remove Docket No. 52 from the docket of motions actively pending before the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull on 8/1/2014. (kd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
THOMAS H. FLUHARTY, in his
official capacity as Bankruptcy Trustee; et al.
Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-27
The Honorable Irene M. Keeley
CITY OF CLARKSBURG, a municipal
corporation and political subdivision; et al.
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Compel Disclosure,” filed
on July 29, 2014. (Docket No. 52.) Defendants filed their response on August 1, 2014. (Docket No.
55.) This matter was referred to the undersigned by United States District Judge Irene M. Keeley on
July 30, 2014. (Docket No. 53.)
Relevant Procedural History
On February 17, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants, alleging claims of civil
rights deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, unlawful seizure of property without just compensation
under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and various claims under West Virginia law.
(Docket No. 1.) Defendants filed an Answer and a motion to dismiss on March 26, 2014. (Docket
Nos. 7-9.) Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on April 15, 2014. (Docket No. 13.) On April 29,
2014, the City of Clarksburg filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. (Docket Nos.
18-19.) The remaining Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on June 12,
2014. (Docket Nos. 33-34.) Plaintiffs filed a response to the City of Clarksburg’s motion to dismiss
on June 12, 2014. (Docket No. 35.) The City of Clarksburg filed a reply on June 17, 2014. (Docket
No. 38.) Plaintiffs filed a response to the remaining Defendants’ motion to dismiss on June 23, 2014.
(Docket No. 43.) A reply was filed on June 30, 2014. (Docket No. 45.) On July 14, 2014, Judge
Keeley entered an Order directing Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint by Friday, August
8, 2014; denying as moot without prejudice Defendants’ motions to dismiss; designating the matter
as a complex case; and ordering the parties “to submit pre-trial disclosures involving potential
insurance coverage claims by Monday, July 14, 2014.” (Docket No. 49.)
Discussion and Conclusion
In their motion, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have failed to comply with Judge Keeley’s
Order directing that the parties submit pre-trial disclosures involving potential insurance coverage
claims by July 14, 2014. (Docket No. 52 at 1-2.) As Plaintiffs state:
As of the filing of this Motion, the undersigned advises that no such pretrial disclosures
have been made or provided to Plaintiffs and that the undersigned has had three (3)
separate telephone conferences with counsel for Defendants regarding same. Initially,
the undersigned, at the request of counsel for the Defendants, agreed to a short delay
in the pretrial disclosures, but, as of this date, the required information and
documentation concerning potential insurance coverage has not been provided.
Plaintiffs are in the process of preparing the Second Amended Complaint as directed
by the Court, and Defendants’ insurance documentation required to be disclosed would
be material and helpful to that process, as discussed with the Court during the
telephonic hearing held on July 8, 2014.
(Id.) Plaintiffs request that the Court order Defendants to comply with the required disclosure. (Id.
In their response, Defendants state as follows:
On August 1, 2014, the Defendants, via counsel, received a copy of the at-issue
insurance policy. Subsequently, the Defendants, via counsel, forwarded said policy to
counsel for the Plaintiffs.
As such, it appears as if the Plaintiffs’ motion is now moot as the Defendants have
supplied the sought after information.
(Docket No. 55 at 2.) Given Defendants representations, and absent any information to the contrary,
Defendants’ disclosure of the insurance policy renders Plaintiffs’ motion moot.
In their motion, Plaintiffs also seek a “corresponding extension in the time period within which
to file the Second Amended Complaint.” (Docket No. 52 at 2.) Defendants state that they “have no
objection to providing Plaintiffs with additional time to file the necessary Amended Complaint.”
(Docket No. 55 at 2.) The Court has been advised the parties are entering in to a joint stipulation
extending the time for filing the Second Amended Complaint. Upon receipt, the Court will review the
same for its effect on the overall schedule of the case as set by the District Judge. If the stipulation is
filed, it will moot the portion of Docket No. 52 which seeks and extension of time to file the Second
Amended Complaint and an appropriate order or signing of the stipulation by the Court will follow.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Compel Disclosures” (Docket No. 52) is
DENIED AS MOOT to the extent it requests that the Court order Defendants to comply with the
required disclosure of insurance information. The undersigned declines to rule on whether Plaintiffs
should receive an extension of time within which to file their Second Amended Complaint.
The hearing scheduled for Tuesday, August 5, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. is hereby CANCELLED.
The Clerk is directed to remove Docket No. 52 from the docket of motions actively pending
before the Court.
The Clerk is further directed to provide copies of this Order/Opinion to all counsel of record.
DATED: August 1, 2014
John S. Kaull
JOHN S. KAULL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?