RATCLIFF v. MEDSOUTH RECORD MANAGEMENT, LLC, 08-718. (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20120321999
Visitors: 1
Filed: Mar. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 20, 2012
Summary: ORDER MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN, District Judge. This Court entered a Judgment in favor of MedSouth Record Management, LLC on October 7, 2011, following this Court's grant of summary judgment on October 5, 2011, in which the Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims with prejudice. MedSouth now seeks to revive its counterclaims that it voluntarily dismissed on March 13, 2009, allegedly due to events that have arisen since this Court entered its Judgment. IT IS ORDERED: that this Court's Order dated
Summary: ORDER MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN, District Judge. This Court entered a Judgment in favor of MedSouth Record Management, LLC on October 7, 2011, following this Court's grant of summary judgment on October 5, 2011, in which the Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims with prejudice. MedSouth now seeks to revive its counterclaims that it voluntarily dismissed on March 13, 2009, allegedly due to events that have arisen since this Court entered its Judgment. IT IS ORDERED: that this Court's Order dated M..
More
ORDER
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN, District Judge.
This Court entered a Judgment in favor of MedSouth Record Management, LLC on October 7, 2011, following this Court's grant of summary judgment on October 5, 2011, in which the Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims with prejudice.
MedSouth now seeks to revive its counterclaims that it voluntarily dismissed on March 13, 2009, allegedly due to events that have arisen since this Court entered its Judgment.
IT IS ORDERED: that this Court's Order dated March 19, 2012 is hereby VACATED.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that the defendants' motion for leave to file amended counterclaim in this closed matter is hereby DENIED.2
FootNotes
1. The Court intended to deny the request, which is not only unsupported but stale; however, when the Order was being electronically processed by chambers staff, the Court inadvertently failed to apply the electronic indication that the motion should be "DENIED".
2. The defendants have failed to demonstrate why this Court should reopen this closed matter to permit amendment to pleadings that were voluntarily dismissed on March 13, 2009.
Source: Leagle
