TEMPESTA v. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., 4:15-CV-7 RLW. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20151006e34
Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 05, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RONNIE L. WHITE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (ECF No. 24). Therein, Plaintiff, with the consent for Defendant, requests that the Court amend the Case Management Order because it "will likely be oppressive to the new parties," particularly The Brickman Group who was added as a Third Party Defendant. The Court, however, notes that there is no indication in the record that The Brickman Group has been se
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RONNIE L. WHITE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (ECF No. 24). Therein, Plaintiff, with the consent for Defendant, requests that the Court amend the Case Management Order because it "will likely be oppressive to the new parties," particularly The Brickman Group who was added as a Third Party Defendant. The Court, however, notes that there is no indication in the record that The Brickman Group has been ser..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RONNIE L. WHITE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (ECF No. 24). Therein, Plaintiff, with the consent for Defendant, requests that the Court amend the Case Management Order because it "will likely be oppressive to the new parties," particularly The Brickman Group who was added as a Third Party Defendant.
The Court, however, notes that there is no indication in the record that The Brickman Group has been served. The Court believes that any Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order is premature, given that The Brickman Group has not been served and has not joined in this Motion that is supposedly on its behalf. The parties should continue to follow the current Case Management Order unless and until the Brickman Group is served and joins in a motion to amend the scheduling order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (ECF No. 24) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
