NEW GENERATION CHRISTIAN CHURCH v. ROCKDALE COUNTY, 1:12-cv-02138-JEC. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20140328a98
Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 27, 2014
Summary: FootNotes 1. After granting a joint motion for an extension of time to complete discovery, the scheduling order's deadline was May 7, 2013 ( See Proposed Order [26-1] (approved by minute entry).) 2. Rule 15(c)(3) is a previous version of Rule 15(c)(1)(C). It differs only slightly in wording; the differences are not substantive. 3. Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981 are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F
Summary: FootNotes 1. After granting a joint motion for an extension of time to complete discovery, the scheduling order's deadline was May 7, 2013 ( See Proposed Order [26-1] (approved by minute entry).) 2. Rule 15(c)(3) is a previous version of Rule 15(c)(1)(C). It differs only slightly in wording; the differences are not substantive. 3. Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981 are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F...
More
FootNotes
1. After granting a joint motion for an extension of time to complete discovery, the scheduling order's deadline was May 7, 2013 (See Proposed Order [26-1] (approved by minute entry).)
2. Rule 15(c)(3) is a previous version of Rule 15(c)(1)(C). It differs only slightly in wording; the differences are not substantive.
3. Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981 are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981).
4. This raises an issue not addressed by either party in their briefs. Although plaintiff now seeks to proceed as "New Generation True Holiness Church," rather than "New Generation Christian Church," it is not clear that the newly-named plaintiff suffered the injuries alleged in plaintiff's complaint. In his deposition, Lewis sometimes characterizes the difference as simply one of names, but elsewhere insists that they are distinct entities separated by doctrinal differences. (See Lewis Dep. [32-3] at 16-18.) This issue, however, is beyond the scope of the present Order.
5. Defendant does not suggest that it might have answered paragraph 29 of the complaint differently if plaintiff had filed this action under the name "New Generation True Holiness Church" rather than "New Generation Christian Church." Indeed, defendant's excuse— that it did not investigate the facts—would seem to preclude that argument.
Source: Leagle
