UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
October 12, 2011
DELIVERMED HOLDINGS, LLC, PLAINTIFF,
MICHAEL L SCHALTENBRAND, JOE D. SIDDLE AND MEDICATE PHARMACY, INC., DEFENDANTS. MARK A SWIFT, PLAINTIFF,
MEDICATE PHARMACY, INC. AND MICHAEL SCHALTENBRAND, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the motion to strike filed by defendants Medicate Pharmacy, Inc. ("Medicate"), Michael Schaltenbrand and Joe Siddle (collectively, the Medicate Parties) (Doc. 124) and the motion to dismiss filed by Siddle (Doc. 126). Both motions were filed on August 19, 2011. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c) and (g), the plaintiffs' response to the motion to strike was due 14 days after the motion was filed, and the plaintiffs' response to the motion to dismiss was due 30 days after the motion to dismiss was filed. Those deadlines have passed, but the plaintiffs have not responded. The Court may, it its discretion, construe a party's failure to file a timely response as an admission of the merits of the motion. Local Rule 7.1(c). The Court hereby ORDERS the plaintiffsto SHOW CAUSE on or before October 28, 2011, why the Court should not construe their failure to timely respond to the motions as admissions of the merits of the motions, strike their prayers for attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, and dismiss their claims against Siddle. Failure to respond in a timely manner to this order may result in the Court's granting the motions or dismissing this action for lack of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the Court's inherent authority to manage its docket. See In re Bluestein & Co., 68 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 1995). Responses to the two pending motions shall be an adequate response to this order to show cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J. Phil Gilbert
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.