March 26, 1999, ORDER by Judge Mason in LAMBROS vs.FAULKNER, Civil No. 98-1621. Total of three (3) pages.
JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS
ESTATE/WILL/BUSINESS INSURANCE OF DECEASED ATTORNEY CHARLES W. FAULKNER
ATTORNEY SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER
FAULKNER & FAULKNER
JOHN & JANE DOE'S
CIVIL CASE NO.
The above matter came on before the undersigned upon Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Complaint [Docket No. 40]. Defendants filed no pleading in opposition to the Motion.
The Court, being duly advised in the premises, upon all of the files, records and proceedings herein, now makes and enters the following Order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs Motion to Amend the Complaint [Docket No. ~0] is granted. Plaintiff shall file the Amended Complaint on or before April 7, 1999.
2. Defendants' Answer to the Amended Complaint, filed on March 19, 1999 shall be deemed timely.
3. Defendants shall se~e and file their Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment no later than April 26,1999. Said Motion shall be served in compliance with the requirements of Local Rule7.1((b)(1)(A).
End of page 1
4. Plaintiff shall serve and file its Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss no later than May 14,1999. The response shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule 7.1 (b)(1)(B).
5. Defendants may serve and file a Reply Memorandum in compliance with the requirements of Local Rule 7.1(b)(1)(C) no later than May 21, 1999.
6. After May 21,1999, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment will be submitted to the Court for determination on the written pleadings, unless the Court requests oral argument. No discovery or other pretrial activity shall take place until after determination of said Motion.
7. No later than April 9,1999, Donna Rae Johnson, Esq. and Deborah Ellis, Esq., counsel for Defendants herein, shall each pay to the Clerk of Court the sum of $125 as a sanction. See Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rules 1.3 and 7.1(d).
Dated: March 26,1999
John M. Mason
United States Magistrate Judge
There has been much pretrial confusion in this case. In an effort to clarify the pretrial proceedings, this Court issued its Order of January 26,1999 [Docket No. 371 That Order set out a procedure by which Plaintiff could seek to amend his Complaint. As required by the Order, Plaintiff served a Motion to Amend his Complaint. Defendants were required to file their response to Plaintiff's Motion 14 days after they were served. They contend that they did not receive the Motion until March 5,1999, because of an error in the
End of page 2
Post Office delivery. In any event, Defendants have made no response to the Motion. Therefore, the Motion is granted, without review of the merits.
On March 19, 1999, Defendants' filed "Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint" [Docket No. 41]. Since the Motion to Amend the Complaint had not yet been addressed by Defendants, nor ruled upon by the Court, this document was at best premature. However, to avoid further confusion, and in order to conclude the Complaint and Answer of this case, we order that the Amended Complaint now be filed, and that the service of Defendants' Answer be permitted as if the Complaint had already been amended at the time the Answer was filed.
Defendants have previously filed a dispositive Motion. In the Order of January 26, 1999, we directed that this Motion be withdrawn, to be renewed after the Complaint takes final form. This Order now establishes the schedule for the submission of dispositive Motions.
Counsel for Defendants had failed to comply with earlier deadlines and requirements of the Rules. In an effort to cure these deficiencies, the Order of January 26, 1999, required that Defendants retain additional legal counsel "to insure that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court will be observed." In response, Deborah Ellis, Esq., has noted her appearance as an additional attorney for Defendants. (We note that Ms. Ellis has the same office address and telephone number as Donna Rae Johnson, Esq.) We had hoped that the addition of counsel would serve to avoid the errors of counsel for Defendants. Unfortunately, that has not happened. We therefore impose monetary sanctions, with the hope that these will impress upon counsel their duty to act professionally, and in full compliance with the Rules and Orders of this Court.
For more information write (snail mail) JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS directly at:
JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS
Prisoner No. 00436-124
U. S. Penitentiary Leavenworth
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, KS 66048-1000
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE IN MY BOYCOTT OF BRAZILIAN PRODUCTS.