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.

Bailey v. Metropolitan Council

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

July 22, 2019

Jeffrey L. Bailey and Marlon E. Carter, Plaintiff,
v.
Metropolitan Council, First Transit, Inc., Tim Ogren, Patricia Vold, Don Johnson, Troy D. Gustafson, Teamsters Local 120, and Dean Vinge, Defendants,

          Jeffrey L. Bailey, and Marlon E. Carter (pro se Plaintiffs);

          Brian Hentosz, Littler Mendelson, and Holly M. Robbins, Littler Mendelson, (for Defendants Metropolitan Council, First Transit, Inc., Ogren, Vold, and Vinge); and

          Katrina E. Joseph, (for Defendants Gustafson and Teamsters Local 120).

          ORDER

          Tony N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motions for Extension of Response Time to All Defendants' Motions (ECF Nos. 31 and 39), Plaintiffs' Motions for Restraining Order on Brian Hentosz. (ECF Nos. 32 and 40), Plaintiffs' Motions to Serve by Publication on “Defendant” Don Johnson (ECF Nos. 35 and 42), and Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 44). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motions for extension of time, to serve by publication, and to amend the complaint. The Court will set forth a briefing schedule on the motion for a temporary restraining order.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs filed suit on April 12, 2019. They allege claims related to their employment at the First Transit Metro Mobility Division of Roseville, MN and their membership in Teamsters Union Local 120. (ECF No. 5, p. 7). All Defendants have appeared in this matter, with the exception of Defendant Don Johnson. Plaintiffs attempted to serve Johnson at what they believed to be his place of employment. (ECF No. 37). Plaintiffs discovered, however, that Johnson no longer worked there. (Id.). They appear to have made no additional efforts to locate and serve him. The remaining Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint. (ECF Nos. 11 & 17).

         On July 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed three motions. First, they sought to extend the time to respond to Defendants' motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 31). Second, they sought a temporary restraining order against Attorney Brian Hentosz. (ECF No. 32). Finally, they sought permission to serve Johnson by publication. (ECF No. 35).

         On July 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed four additional motions. Three motions (ECF Nos. 39, 40, and 42) were, with minor exceptions, identical to the three motions that they filed the previous day. In the remaining motion, Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint. (ECF No. 44). Plaintiffs did not contact the Court to request a hearing on any of their motions.

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Motions for Extension of Time

         Plaintiffs seek to extend the period of time to respond to the motions from 10 days to 21 days. In support of their motions, Plaintiffs reference “Rule 27, ” which they believe requires them to respond to Defendants' motions within 10 days of service. Plaintiffs contend that additional time is necessary because of the “unusual number of Defendants” and the “numerous motions” to which they need to respond.

         The Court will deny these motions as moot. Plaintiffs have mistakenly relied on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure govern matters pending in the United States Courts of Appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 1(a)(1). Because this matter is pending in the United States District Court, it is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this District's Local Rules. Fed.R.Civ.P. 1; D. Minn. LR 1.1(a). The District's Local Rules provide a moving party 21 days to respond to a dispositive motion, including a motion to dismiss. D. Minn. LR 7.1(c)(2). The Court need not grant the relief that Plaintiffs seek because they already have 21 days to respond to Defendants' motions.

         B. Motions for Temporary ...


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.