United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
August 1, 2003
The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Zagel, District Judge
On May 18, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and for failure to plead fraud with particularity pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Plaintiff did not respond to defendants' motion. Instead, on June 30, 2003, plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave To File an Amended Complaint. This motion, however, did not have the proposed amended pleading attached to it. On July 7, 2003, defendants filed their response to plaintiff's motion, which pointed out that the amended pleading had yet to be filed. Now, defendants ask that I deny plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint and grant their motion to dismiss.
It has been over three weeks since defendants filed this response to plaintiff's motion, and plaintiff still has not filed a response to defendants' motion to dismiss nor an amended complaint. Plaintiff has not been in contact with defendants nor the court. Considering the length of time plaintiff has had to keep this case alive and his failure to take any action, I am interpreting plaintiff's silence as a concession that his original complaint should be dismissed on Rule 12(b)(6) and 9(b) grounds and therefore, am granting defendants' motion to dismiss. I am also denying plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint, but will give plaintiff two weeks to renew the motion. Should plaintiff choose to do so, an actual amended pleading will be expected at that time. [ Page 1]
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.