VINSON v. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 4:14-CV-00029-BRW. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20140821826
Visitors: 35
Filed: Aug. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2014
Summary: ORDER BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge. Pending are Defendant's Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 42) and Motion for Leave to File a Reply (Doc. No. 49). The crux of Defendant's Motions is that William Morrison is not qualified to be a class representative because he is not a named plaintiff. The Amended Complaint filed today, however, adds Mr. Morrison as a named plaintiff. 1 Accordingly, Defendant's Motions are DENIED as moot. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff "waited more than three weeks befo
Summary: ORDER BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge. Pending are Defendant's Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 42) and Motion for Leave to File a Reply (Doc. No. 49). The crux of Defendant's Motions is that William Morrison is not qualified to be a class representative because he is not a named plaintiff. The Amended Complaint filed today, however, adds Mr. Morrison as a named plaintiff. 1 Accordingly, Defendant's Motions are DENIED as moot. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff "waited more than three weeks befor..
More
ORDER
BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge.
Pending are Defendant's Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 42) and Motion for Leave to File a Reply (Doc. No. 49). The crux of Defendant's Motions is that William Morrison is not qualified to be a class representative because he is not a named plaintiff. The Amended Complaint filed today, however, adds Mr. Morrison as a named plaintiff.1 Accordingly, Defendant's Motions are DENIED as moot.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff "waited more than three weeks before filing a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint."2 This three-week delay "carved into the limited time scheduled for Defendant to file its opposition to class certification."3 Defendant is granted a three-week extension to file its opposition to class certification. Accordingly, Defendant's response is due by 5:00 p.m., September 18, 2014 — Plaintiffs' reply remains due on September 30, 2014.
FootNotes
1. Doc. No. 50.
2. Doc. No. 49-1 (emphasis in original).
3. Doc. No. 49-1.
Source: Leagle
