REN v. CAO, MJG-15-1242. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20151020932
Visitors: 29
Filed: Oct. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 19, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MARVIN J. GARBIS , District Judge . The Court has before it Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Request for Hearing [ECF No. 44] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The instant motion was filed on behalf of Defendants Xiao-Ming Cao, Yan Shao (his wife), and Yusi Cao (his son). The Court finds a hearing unnecessary. The Court finds that this motion is untimely under Rule 15(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, given that it was filed a full three month
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MARVIN J. GARBIS , District Judge . The Court has before it Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Request for Hearing [ECF No. 44] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The instant motion was filed on behalf of Defendants Xiao-Ming Cao, Yan Shao (his wife), and Yusi Cao (his son). The Court finds a hearing unnecessary. The Court finds that this motion is untimely under Rule 15(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, given that it was filed a full three months..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MARVIN J. GARBIS, District Judge.
The Court has before it Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Request for Hearing [ECF No. 44] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The instant motion was filed on behalf of Defendants Xiao-Ming Cao, Yan Shao (his wife), and Yusi Cao (his son). The Court finds a hearing unnecessary.
The Court finds that this motion is untimely under Rule 15(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, given that it was filed a full three months after the date the Amended Complaint was filed. Under that Rule, an answer to or motion to dismiss an amended complaint must be filed within the later of 14 days after service of the amended complaint or 21 days after service of the original complaint. Both dates have long since passed.
Defendants Yan Shao and Yusi Cao previously filed a motion to dismiss that has been denied. The Court denied that motion. See Memorandum and Order [ECF No. 48] (denying Co-Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Request for Hearing [ECF No. 36]). The Court finds no reason to permit the filing of serial motions to dismiss engendering even further delay in the instant case.
Accordingly,
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Request for Hearing [ECF No. 44] is DENIED.
2. Plaintiffs shall arrange a telephone conference with counsel for all remaining parties to be held by November 2, 2015, to discuss a scheduling order.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
