Strohbehn v. Access Group Inc
Filing
62
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 7/13/2017 DENYING 57 Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Amend Complaint and DENYING 60 Defendant Access Group, Inc.'s Omnibus Motion to Bifurcate Discovery. (cc: all counsel) (jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ERIN STROHBEHN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACCESS GROUP INC. and
WELTMAN WEINBERG & REIS CO.
LPA,
Case No. 16-CV-985-JPS-JPS
ORDER
Defendants.
On July 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed an expedited motion to amend her
complaint. (Docket #57). She asserts that she promptly pursued discovery
after the Court ruled on the pending motion to dismiss. In doing so, Plaintiff
found that Xerox Education Services, LLC (“Xerox”) had worked under
Defendant Access Group, Inc. (“Access”) in an attempt to collect her debt,
specifically with regard to credit reporting. Plaintiff seeks leave to add a
new count against Xerox, as well as a claim against Defendant Weltman,
Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA (“WWR”) for its role in this credit reporting
activity.
Access alone offered a response to Plaintiff’s motion. (Docket #60). It
claims that Plaintiff knew of Xerox’s involvement at least as of August 2016,
when Access filed its first motion to dismiss. Still, Access says that it does
not oppose the motion directly. Instead, it claims that the deadlines of the
trial scheduling order, including the September 1, 2017 cut-off date for
dispositive motions, would need to change with Xerox’s addition to this
case. Unrelatedly, Access poses an “omnibus motion for bifurcated
discovery” within its response. Access asks that the Court bifurcate
discovery in this matter in an effort to save resources.
The Court will deny both parties’ motions. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure dictates that leave to amend a pleading should be freely given
“when justice so requires.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Justice does not
require amendment here. Rule 15’s command must be weighed against the
Court’s prerogative to maintain the schedule set in this case on June 12,
2017. (Docket #48). Allowing Plaintiff to name Xerox would derail that
schedule. Plaintiff remains free to pursue Access for Xerox’s conduct, as she
insists that Xerox was at all times acting as Access’s agent, see (Docket #571), or she may simply file a separate action against Xerox.1 Access’s request
to bifurcate discovery will likewise be denied. Discovery must continue to
proceed on all relevant issues so that this case will be ready for trial in
December.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s expedited motion for leave to
amend her complaint (Docket #57) be and the same is hereby DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Access Group, Inc.’s
omnibus motion to bifurcate discovery (Docket #60) be and the same is
hereby DENIED.
To the extent Plaintiff wishes to pursue her new claims against WWR, she
must file a separate motion; the currently proposed amended complaint includes
Xerox and so must be rejected entirely.
1
Page 2 of 3
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 13th day of July, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 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?