Filed: Feb. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER TERRY F. MOORER , District Judge . On January 31, 2019, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation (Doc. 115) which recommends the Defendant's Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 48, 60, 64, and 65) be denied and the Motion to Amend (Doc. 67) be granted. Defendant filed objections (Doc. 119) to which Plaintiffs responded (Doc. 125). Defendant also filed, without leave of court, a reply to the Plaintiffs' response to objections (Doc. 126). Reg
Summary: ORDER TERRY F. MOORER , District Judge . On January 31, 2019, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation (Doc. 115) which recommends the Defendant's Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 48, 60, 64, and 65) be denied and the Motion to Amend (Doc. 67) be granted. Defendant filed objections (Doc. 119) to which Plaintiffs responded (Doc. 125). Defendant also filed, without leave of court, a reply to the Plaintiffs' response to objections (Doc. 126). Rega..
More
ORDER
TERRY F. MOORER, District Judge.
On January 31, 2019, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation (Doc. 115) which recommends the Defendant's Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 48, 60, 64, and 65) be denied and the Motion to Amend (Doc. 67) be granted. Defendant filed objections (Doc. 119) to which Plaintiffs responded (Doc. 125). Defendant also filed, without leave of court, a reply to the Plaintiffs' response to objections (Doc. 126). Regardless, the Court ultimately considered the reply when reviewing the matters.
After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 115) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant's motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Docs. 48, 60, 64, and 65) are DENIED.
Further, by adopting the R&R, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 67). However, the Court also notes that in addition to the previously filed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 49, filed June 21, 2018), the Defendant subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to the claims of Amanda Beall (Doc. 98). After the summary judgment motion was filed, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Substitute Parties or, In the Alternative, for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. 108).
To prevent confusion and to ensure clarity on the operative complaint, the Court also GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 108) to the extent the Court grants leave to file the amended complaint, but denies the motion to substitute parties. As a result, the Court also DENIES without prejudice as moot the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 49) and the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 98).
Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file their Amended Complaint on or before March 11, 2019.
Finally, pending before the Court are the parties' respective position statements on Mediation/ADR (Docs. 120, 122). As all pending motions have been resolved, the matter of whether mediation is appropriate is referred to the Magistrate Judge.
DONE and ORDERED.
