United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Jean Lee, 10101 Lyndale Avenue South, Apartment 219,
Bloomington, MN 55420
Bradley J. Lindeman, Jennifer M. Zwilling, and Margaret R.
Ryan, Meagher & Geer, PLLP; Christopher T. Kalla and
Donna E. Hanberry, Hanberry & Turner, P.A.
Katherine Menendez United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on separate email requests
received from the Plaintiff, Claire Lee. Specifically, Ms.
Lee asks for an extension of time to respond to a pending
motion to dismiss and for the Court to hold an evidentiary
hearing and issue sanctions for events related to the
parties' ongoing attempts to settle this litigation.
Plaintiff's Request for Extension of Time to Respond to
Motion to Dismiss
April 20, 2018, Ms. Lee sent an email to the undersigned
requesting an extension of time to respond to the pending
motion to dismiss filed by the Defendants Chris Kalla and the
Law Firm of Hanbury and Turner. [Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No.
28.] The motion was filed on March 27, 2018,  and a hearing was
set on the motion for May 17, 2018. Ms. Lee also asked that
the hearing on the motion to dismiss be continued. Ms. Lee
requested at least three additional months to file her
response to find the information she needs to oppose the
motion to dismiss.
Lee's request for an extension is GRANTED IN
PART. Because there have been ongoing efforts to
settle this litigation, Ms. Lee is representing herself, and
she has demonstrated that under the circumstances more time
is needed to respond, the Court finds good cause for an
extension of the response deadline. However, the Court will
not extend the deadline to respond by a full three months
from the date of Ms. Lee's April 20th email. Instead, the
Court enters the following briefing schedule regarding the
motion to dismiss.
1. Ms. Lee shall file a response to the motion to dismiss,
on or before June 4, 2018.
2. The defendants shall file any reply on or before
June 18, 2018.
3. The May 17, 2018 hearing on the motion to dismiss is
4. Upon receipt of the response and the reply concerning the
motion to dismiss, a hearing on the motion will either be
rescheduled or the motion will be taken under advisement
based on the written submissions alone.
Plaintiff's Request for Evidentiary Hearing and
April 24, 2018, Ms. Lee sent an email that relates to the
ongoing efforts by the undersigned and the parties to resolve
issues about the language and terms of a settlement
agreement. Ms. Lee asks the Court to hold an
evidentiary hearing and to issue sanctions against defense
counsel. She also asks the Court to require the appearance at
the evidentiary hearing of class counsel from Soderstrom
et al. v. MSP Crossroads Apartments LLC, et al.,
0:16-cv-233-ADM-KMM-the case from which Ms. Lee's
individual claims in this action were severed. In her email,
Ms. Lee also indicates her willingness to resolve her case
with the Defendants.
Court finds that no evidentiary hearing is required to
address the issues raised in Ms. Lee's April 24, 2018
email. The parties have engaged in a significant amount of
work to try and resolve this case. They are very close to
wrapping up the litigation and moving on from this dispute.
There is a strong policy in the federal courts for resolution
of lawsuits through settlements because it saves the
litigants' and the public's resources. ...