United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Jeffrey L. Bailey and Marlon E. Carter, Plaintiff,
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);
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
N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge
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.
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).
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).
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 for Extension of Time
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.
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.
Motions for Temporary ...