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.

Crenshaw v. Hartman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


November 5, 2009

WILLIAM CRENSHAW, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES HARTMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: David G. Larimer United States District Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

By order entered April 6, 2009 (Dkt. #28), the Court granted plaintiff's motion (Dkt. #21) to amend his complaint. There is now pending a motion to dismiss by the original eight (8) defendants in the case, and the Court is reviewing that motion which was opposed by plaintiff (Dkt. #27).

Defendants have not filed any motion to dismiss relative to the eight (8) new defendants that were added by plaintiff in his motion to amend.

Within twenty (20) days of this order, defendants must advise the Court whether they intend to move to dismiss or not and if such a motion is contemplated, how much time will be necessary to file it.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Rochester, New York

20091105

© 1992-2009 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.