KRUSE v. BYRNE, 11-00513-KD-C. (2012)
Court: District Court, S.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20120726598
Visitors: 19
Attorneys: More Attorneys
Filed: Jul. 25, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 25, 2012
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 66), Defendant Charles E. Sherman, M.D.'s Objection (Doc. 72) and the remaining Defendants Response (Doc. 73). The proposed amendment will add medical negligence claims against Defendants May, Williams and Pimperl, as well as clarify and allege more specifically the breaches in the standard of care by Defendant Sherman. (Doc. 66). The Defendants, with the excep
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 66), Defendant Charles E. Sherman, M.D.'s Objection (Doc. 72) and the remaining Defendants Response (Doc. 73). The proposed amendment will add medical negligence claims against Defendants May, Williams and Pimperl, as well as clarify and allege more specifically the breaches in the standard of care by Defendant Sherman. (Doc. 66). The Defendants, with the except..
More
ORDER
KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 66), Defendant Charles E. Sherman, M.D.'s Objection (Doc. 72) and the remaining Defendants Response (Doc. 73). The proposed amendment will add medical negligence claims against Defendants May, Williams and Pimperl, as well as clarify and allege more specifically the breaches in the standard of care by Defendant Sherman. (Doc. 66). The Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Sherman, "see no grounds to object" to the motion. (Doc. 73). Defendant Sherman objects to Plaintiff's motion, not based on the proposed clarification and/or amplification of the allegations against him but rather on a lack of jurisdiction contention. Defendant Sherman's contention, however, presumes that his pending motion to dismiss will be granted, thus mooting the proposed amendment to Plaintiff's claims against him (i.e., based on the possibility of such future event). Having considered Defendant Sherman's objections, the Court finds they lack merit. Accordingly, is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 66) is GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
