Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
James Harrell, Plaintiff, represented by Sean Patrick Barth , NAPOLI AND BERN.
Edna Harrell, Plaintiff, represented by Sean Patrick Barth , NAPOLI AND BERN.
Boeing Co., Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin , SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.
Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian M. Wacker , HERZOG CREBS LLP, James D. Maschhoff , HERZOG CREBS LLP & Mary A. Hatch , HERZOG CREBS LLP.
CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue , FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..
Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci , HEPLER BROOM.
General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Anita Maria Kidd , ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Raymond R. Fournie , ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King , ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.
Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci , HEPLER BROOM.
Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Springfield , POLSINELLI PC.
Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci , HEPLER BROOM.
J.P. Bushnell Packing Supply Co., Defendant, represented by Stephen J. Maassen , HOAGLAND AND FITZGERALD.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley , JOLEY AND NUSSBAUMER, P.C..
Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert F. Chandler , BAKER AND STERCHI, LLC.
Trane U.S., Inc., Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci , HEPLER BROOM.
Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash , LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP.
United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino , KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.
Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy A. Graham, Sr. , HEYL AND ROYSTER.
Young Group Ltd., Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin , SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.
Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin , SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.
General Electric Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Anita Maria Kidd , ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Raymond R. Fournie , ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King , ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.
Boeing Co., Cross Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin , SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.
CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue , FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..
Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci , HEPLER BROOM.
Georgia Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci , HEPLER BROOM.
Edna Harrell, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean Patrick Barth , NAPOLI AND BERN.
James Harrell, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean Patrick Barth , NAPOLI AND BERN.
Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Springfield , POLSINELLI PC.
Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci , HEPLER BROOM.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley , JOLEY AND NUSSBAUMER, P.C..
Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert F. Chandler , BAKER AND STERCHI, LLC.
Trane U.S., Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci , HEPLER BROOM.
Union Carbide Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash , LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP.
United Technologies Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino , KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.
Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., as Successor-by-Merger to,, Cross Claimant, represented by Brian M. Wacker , HERZOG CREBS LLP & Mary A. Hatch , HERZOG CREBS LLP.
Boeing Co., Cross Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin , SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.
CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corp.,, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue , FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..
Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci , HEPLER BROOM.
General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Anita Maria Kidd , ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Raymond R. Fournie , ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King , ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.
Georgia Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci , HEPLER BROOM.
Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Springfield , POLSINELLI PC.
Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci , HEPLER BROOM.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley , JOLEY AND NUSSBAUMER, P.C..
Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert F. Chandler , BAKER AND STERCHI, LLC.
Trane U.S., Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci , HEPLER BROOM.
Union Carbide Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash , LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP.
United Technologies Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino , KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.
Young Group Ltd., Cross Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin , SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.
Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin , SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.
United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY, District Judge.
This recently removed asbestos case is before me on my review of the file. On July 17, 2014, I ordered plaintiffs to show cause why their complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice against several defendants. In response, plaintiffs claimed that several of the defendants had been served, and they attached as exhibits returns of service. As these returns of service were not properly filed, plaintiffs were contacted by the Clerk's Office about refiling these in accordance with the local rules of this Court. In their response to the Show Cause Order, plaintiffs also stated that they were seeking alias summonses for two defendants. However, plaintiffs were informed by the Clerk's Office that they had not properly requested the issuance of alias summonses. To date, plaintiffs have failed to comply with the directives of the Clerk's Office regarding the proper filing of these documents, requiring me to send out this Order directing compliance with the Clerk's Office. This Order should be unnecessary, but let me be clear: Plaintiffs must comply with the instructions of the Clerk's Office regarding the proper filings of documents without further involvement by me.
Plaintiffs are not the only ones who have not complied with the federal and local rules. Although defendant J. P. Bushnell Packing Supply Co.'s attorney entered an appearance on August 5, 2014 [#63], this defendant has yet to seek leave to file an answer out of time despite being served in this case on February 13, 2014. This defendant is therefore in default, as filing an entry of appearance is not the equivalent of filing a responsive pleading in federal court. I will give defendant Bushnell five days from the date of this Order to seek leave to file a responsive pleading out of time. If no such motion is filed, I expect the plaintiffs to move for entry of default and default judgment, accompanied by all necessary affidavits, exhibits, and proposed Orders.
Similarly, Defendant Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. was served on February 18, 2014, but did not bother to file any response until August 5, 2014. The response an answer, but a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a defense which, under the federal rules, has been waived for failure to timely assert it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Defendant filed no motion seeking leave to file its late responsive pleading. Despite these multiple pleading deficiencies, the Court in this one instance only will construe defendant Whittaker's motion to include a request for leave to file out of time, and will allow the motion to be filed so the court can consider it on the merits. Plaintiffs shall file their response to the motion to dismiss by August 25, 2014. No reply brief is permitted absent further Order of this Court.
All counsel are notified that the Court expects strict compliance with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure in the future, and any untimely motions filed without an appropriate motion for leave will be summarily denied. Likewise, any motions filed without the required supporting memorandum of law will be summarily denied.
Finally, given the age of the case and the numerous defendants, the Court would like plaintiffs to file a status report which sets out the progress of this case to date, the nature and extent of any discovery conducted in state court, and what, if any, additional discovery is required before this case is referred to mediation. Additionally, if this case was subject to any specific procedural or substantive requirements in state court due to the nature of the case, plaintiffs shall set out what those requirements were and provide a copy to the Court for review. Once plaintiffs file their status report, the Court will determine whether to refer this case to mediation immediately or to set a scheduling conference.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file a status report and comply with the other provisions of this Memorandum and Order as set out above by August 25, 2014.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Bushnell shall either seek leave to file a responsive pleading out of time within five (5) days of the date of this Order, or plaintiffs shall move for entry of default and default judgment as set out above by August 25, 2014.
Comment
User Comments