Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Parker Excavating, Inc. v. Jomco Contracting, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division

May 8, 2019

PARKER EXCAVATING, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
JOMCO CONTRACTING, LLC; JOMCO, INC.; HIGHLANDS AT CULLOWHEE LLC; WESLEY SAMUEL OWENBY, in his individual and official capacity; JOSEPH RILEY JOHNSON, in his individual and official capacity; and TRICIA RUTH, in her individual and official capacity, Defendants.

          ORDER

          W. Carleton Metcalf United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter is before the Court on the following:

1) Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5);
2) Plaintiff's “Response to Motion to Dismiss/Amended Complaint” (Doc. 12);
3) Plaintiff's Response to Show Cause (Doc. 14); and
4) Plaintiff's “Amended Motion for Leave to Amend and Memorandum of Law in Support” (Doc. 17).

         I. Procedural Background

         On January 23, 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action in state court. The case was subsequently removed to this Court. See (Doc. 1).

         On March 4, 2019, Defendants filed their Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) and a supporting brief (Doc. 6).

         On March 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Extension for Time to Answer or Respond” (Doc. 8) in which Plaintiff requested that its deadline to respond to Defendant's Joint Motion to Dismiss be extended to April 18, 2019. Plaintiff's Motion was denied without prejudice for noncompliance with the Local Rules. See (Doc. 9).

         On March 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed an “Amended Motion for Extension for Time to Answer or Respond” (Doc. 10). That motion was granted and Plaintiff was allowed up to and including April 18, 2019 within which to respond to Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss. See (Doc. 11).

         Plaintiff filed a “Response to Motion to Dismiss/Amended Complaint” on April 1, 2019 (referred to hereafter as “Amended Complaint”). See (Doc. 12).

         On April 3, 2019, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why its Amended Complaint should not be stricken as untimely. Plaintiff filed its response (Doc. 14) to that Order on April 9, 2019.

         The same day, Plaintiff requested leave to amend its Complaint. (Doc. 15). Plaintiff's Motion was denied without prejudice for noncompliance with the Local Rules, and Plaintiff's counsel was directed to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.