Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

St. Marks Avenue, LLC v. Communities Organized To Improve Life, Inc., GLR-17-3045. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Maryland Number: infdco20180227a01 Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM TO PARTIES RE GEORGE L. RUSSELL, III , District Judge . Dear Parties: There are three motions currently pending before the Court. First, there is Stacy Smith's Request for the Court to Acknowledge Legal Standing and Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with Prejudice (ECF No. 6). Second, there is Smith's Motion to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Default and Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with Prejudice (ECF No. 11). Third, there is Smith's Motion for the Court to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for
More

MEMORANDUM TO PARTIES RE

Dear Parties:

There are three motions currently pending before the Court. First, there is Stacy Smith's Request for the Court to Acknowledge Legal Standing and Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with Prejudice (ECF No. 6). Second, there is Smith's Motion to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Default and Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with Prejudice (ECF No. 11). Third, there is Smith's Motion for the Court to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Clerk's Entry of Default and Extension of Time (ECF No. 13). All the Motions are ripe for disposition, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2016).

The Court will deny Smith's third Motion to the extent that she seeks an extension of time to obtain representation for Defendant Communities Organized To Improve Life, Inc. ("COIL"). Plaintiff St. Marks Avenue, LLC ("St. Marks") sued COIL on October 17, 2017. (ECF No. 1). On November 15, 2017, the deadline for COIL to file a responsive pleading, Smith sought an extension of time to obtain counsel for COIL. (ECF No. 5). On December 5, 2017, the Court granted Smith twenty-one days to do so. (ECF No. 7). Smith now seeks a second extension of time thirty-four days past the Court's deadline and ninety-six days since St. Marks served COIL. (See ECF Nos. 4, 7, 13). The Court already afforded Smith leniency to obtain representation by granting her first Motion for Extension of Time and finds no good cause to provide her any more extensions.

The Court will deny the rest of Smith's third Motion and her other two Motions. Smith is not a party in this action; St. Marks brings all of its claims against COIL. Under Local Rule 101(1)(a), "[a]ll parties other than individuals must be represented by counsel." Thus, to the extent that Smith—who is not an attorney—brings Motions on behalf of COIL, Local Rule 101(1)(a) requires the Court to deny them.

For the foregoing reasons, in addition to those stated in St. Marks' respective Oppositions, Smith's Request for the Court to Acknowledge Legal Standing and Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with Prejudice (ECF No. 6), Motion to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Default and Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with Prejudice (ECF No. 11), and Motion for the Court to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Clerk's Entry of Default and Extension of Time (ECF No. 13) are DENIED.

Despite the informal nature of this memorandum, it shall constitute an Order of this Court, and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly and mail a copy to COIL and Smith at their respective addresses of record.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer