Watchous Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Pacific National Capital, 16-1432-JTM. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Kansas
Number: infdco20180202d58
Visitors: 15
Filed: Feb. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 01, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES P. O'HARA , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), defendants Pacific National Capital, Charles A. Elfsten, and Mark M. Hasegawa have filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer that pleads a crossclaim 1 against defendants Waterfall Mountain USA LLC, Waterfall Mountain LLC, and Waterfall International Holdings Limited (collectively, "the Waterfall defendants") (ECF No. 99). Under the time requirements set forth in D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d), any response to
Summary: ORDER JAMES P. O'HARA , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), defendants Pacific National Capital, Charles A. Elfsten, and Mark M. Hasegawa have filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer that pleads a crossclaim 1 against defendants Waterfall Mountain USA LLC, Waterfall Mountain LLC, and Waterfall International Holdings Limited (collectively, "the Waterfall defendants") (ECF No. 99). Under the time requirements set forth in D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d), any response to t..
More
ORDER
JAMES P. O'HARA, Magistrate Judge.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), defendants Pacific National Capital, Charles A. Elfsten, and Mark M. Hasegawa have filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer that pleads a crossclaim1 against defendants Waterfall Mountain USA LLC, Waterfall Mountain LLC, and Waterfall International Holdings Limited (collectively, "the Waterfall defendants") (ECF No. 99). Under the time requirements set forth in D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d), any response to the motion was due on January 31, 2018. No timely opposition has been filed.
D. Kan. Rule 7.4 provides, "If a responsive brief or memorandum is not filed within the Rule 6.1(d) time requirements, the court will consider and decide the motion as an uncontested motion. Ordinarily the court will grant the motion without further notice."
The court considers the motion unopposed and grants it without further notice. Movants shall file their amended answer by February 7, 2018. As the court has informed the Waterfall defendants on multiple occasions,2 corporations may not appear pro se. Thus, the Waterfall defendants are again urged to secure counsel should they wish to answer the crossclaim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(g).
2. See ECF Nos. 37, 39, & 68.
Source: Leagle
