Filed: Apr. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Pro se Defendants Alice Ballmer and Chris Ballmer's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 88). The Court, having considered the motion and being otherwise advised of the premises, concludes that the motion is inappropriate at this stage. Alice Ballmer and Chris Ballmer filed an answer to Plaintiff's complaint on February 24, 2011 (Dkt. 13), more than one year ago, and their purported "motion to dismiss" appears to set fort
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Pro se Defendants Alice Ballmer and Chris Ballmer's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 88). The Court, having considered the motion and being otherwise advised of the premises, concludes that the motion is inappropriate at this stage. Alice Ballmer and Chris Ballmer filed an answer to Plaintiff's complaint on February 24, 2011 (Dkt. 13), more than one year ago, and their purported "motion to dismiss" appears to set forth..
More
ORDER
JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Pro se Defendants Alice Ballmer and Chris Ballmer's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 88). The Court, having considered the motion and being otherwise advised of the premises, concludes that the motion is inappropriate at this stage.
Alice Ballmer and Chris Ballmer filed an answer to Plaintiff's complaint on February 24, 2011 (Dkt. 13), more than one year ago, and their purported "motion to dismiss" appears to set forth an additional defense of "implied contract," or acquiescence, waiver, or estoppel. Given Defendants' pro se status, the Court will construe their pending motion to dismiss as a supplement to their answer (Dkt. 13), to the extent that it sets forth any additional denials or defenses to Plaintiff's claims against them in this case.
The Court notes that Defendants may file a summary judgment motion at the appropriate time (i.e., after the commencement of discovery) on any of their alleged defenses.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Pro se Defendants Alice Ballmer and Chris Ballmer's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 88) is DENIED.
2. The Court will allow pro se Defendants Alice Ballmer and Chris Ballmer's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 88) to serve as a supplement to their answer (Dkt. 13), to the extent that it sets forth any additional defenses in this case.
DONE and ORDERED.
