Filed: Mar. 08, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2017
Summary: ORDER C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion for leave to appear specially (ECF No. 111), filed on February 24, 2017. Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 112) on February 24, 2017, and Defendants filed a reply (ECF No. 121) on March 3, 2017. Defendants move for leave to appear specially for the purposes of contesting service. However, Defendants have already attempted to quash service in this matter (ECF Nos. 55, 58, 62 and 64). The Court c
Summary: ORDER C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion for leave to appear specially (ECF No. 111), filed on February 24, 2017. Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 112) on February 24, 2017, and Defendants filed a reply (ECF No. 121) on March 3, 2017. Defendants move for leave to appear specially for the purposes of contesting service. However, Defendants have already attempted to quash service in this matter (ECF Nos. 55, 58, 62 and 64). The Court co..
More
ORDER
C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion for leave to appear specially (ECF No. 111), filed on February 24, 2017. Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 112) on February 24, 2017, and Defendants filed a reply (ECF No. 121) on March 3, 2017.
Defendants move for leave to appear specially for the purposes of contesting service. However, Defendants have already attempted to quash service in this matter (ECF Nos. 55, 58, 62 and 64). The Court considered Defendants' arguments and denied the motions (ECF No. 90). The Court has already ruled that service on Defendants was appropriate. Defendants do not provide any new evidence to suggest a reconsideration of this order is warranted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motion for leave to appear specially (ECF No. 111) is DENIED.
