Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Byrd v. Lowe

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


August 31, 2006

LESTER BYRD AND LESLIE BYRD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WILLIAM LOWE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Donald G. Wilkerson United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the First Motion to Withdraw filed by the plaintiff's attorney, Charles R. Douglas, on July 14, 2006 (Doc. 41), the Motion to Compel and for Sanctions filed by the plaintiffs, Lester Byrd and Leslie Byrd, on July 26, 2006 (Doc. 49), the Motion to Amend filed by the plaintiffs on August 14, 2006 (Doc. 53) and the Second Motion to Withdraw filed by Douglas on August 28, 2006 (Doc. 55). The first motion to withdraw is GRANTED IN PART, the motion to compel and for sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, the motion to amend is GRANTED, and the second motion to withdraw is MOOT.

Motions to Withdraw

Attorney Charles R. Douglas seeks to withdraw as counsel for the plaintiffs. Attorney Bruce A. Carr now has entered his appearance for the plaintiffs. Therefore, attorney Douglas is GRANTED leave to withdraw. The second motion is MOOT. Attorney Douglas also appears to seek the Court's enforcement of his "right to request attorney's fees at a later date . . . ." Such a request is unrelated to his withdrawal from the case and is not a matter that is ripe for consideration. Therefore, this Court expresses no opinion as to whether attorney Douglas is entitled to fees or whether this Court will enforce any fee agreement.

Motion to Amend

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may amend a pleading and that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." However, leave to amend may be denied if there is "undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, or futility." Guise v. BWM Mortgage, LLC., 377 F.3d 795, 801 (7th Cir. 2004). The granting or denying of a motion to amend is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Butts v. Aurora Health Care, Inc., 387 F.3d 921, 925 (7th Cir. 2004). There has been no objection to the motion and no showing of prejudice. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED. The plaintiffs SHALL file their amended complaint by September 8, 2006. In light of this ruling, and the plaintiffs' representations in the motion, the motion to dismiss and strike is MOOT (Doc 45) and the motion to compel and for sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Doc. 49).

20060831

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.