DOE v. BROWN, MJG-14-1094. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20141118b46
Visitors: 42
Filed: Nov. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 17, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: RECONSIDERATION OF COUNTERCLAIM MARVIN J. GARBIS, District Judge. The Court has before it Defendants ( sic ) Response to Plaintiffs ( sic ) Motion to Dismiss Defendants ( sic ) Counterclaim [Document 19] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The Court finds that neither a response nor a hearing is necessary. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim [Document 13] was filed June 26, 2014. In a letter Order dated July 23, 2014 [Document 14], the Cou
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: RECONSIDERATION OF COUNTERCLAIM MARVIN J. GARBIS, District Judge. The Court has before it Defendants ( sic ) Response to Plaintiffs ( sic ) Motion to Dismiss Defendants ( sic ) Counterclaim [Document 19] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The Court finds that neither a response nor a hearing is necessary. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim [Document 13] was filed June 26, 2014. In a letter Order dated July 23, 2014 [Document 14], the Cour..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: RECONSIDERATION OF COUNTERCLAIM
MARVIN J. GARBIS, District Judge.
The Court has before it Defendants (sic) Response to Plaintiffs (sic) Motion to Dismiss Defendants (sic) Counterclaim [Document 19] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The Court finds that neither a response nor a hearing is necessary.
Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim [Document 13] was filed June 26, 2014. In a letter Order dated July 23, 2014 [Document 14], the Court stated that Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Motion was due by October 17, 2014. Defendant did not file his response by that date. Plaintiff's Motion was granted on October 31, 2014 in the Memorandum and Order Re: Counterclaim [Document 17].
Although untimely as a motion response, the Court shall treat Defendant's "response" as a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of Defendant's counterclaim. Defendant has presented no valid reason for the Court to change its decision and to permit the counterclaim to proceed.
Accordingly:
1. Defendants (sic) Response to Plaintiffs (sic) Motion to Dismiss Defendants (sic) Counterclaim [Document 19], deemed to be a Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
2. The case shall proceed pursuant to the Scheduling Order [Document 18].
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
