United States District Court, N.D. New York
MAINETTI, MAINETTI & O'CONNOR, P.C. ALEXANDER E.
MAINETTI, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff
ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP MARK J. KAIM, ESQ.
PETER A. LAURICELLA, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant Gander
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
FREDERICK J. SCULLIN, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT
before the Court is Defendant Gander Mountain Company
("Defendant")'s motion for summary judgment.
See Dkt. No. 22.
originally filed this action against Defendant in Ulster
County Supreme Court. Defendant removed the action to this
Court on October 21, 2016, based on the Court's diversity
jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
See Dkt. No. 1 at 2. In his complaint, Plaintiff
asserts claims sounding in negligence and products liability
March 10, 2017, Defendant filed for Chapter 11 protection in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Minnesota. During a telephonic status conference in this case
with Magistrate Judge Baxter on May 3, 2017, the parties
agreed that, in light of the bankruptcy filing, this actions
was automatically stayed. Magistrate Judge Baxter directed
Defendant's counsel to notify the Court once the
bankruptcy proceeding had been resolved or if the automatic
stay were lifted. See Text Minute Entry dated May 3,
2017; Dkt. No. 16, Text Order Staying Case.
letter dated March 5, 2018, Defendant's counsel notified
the Court that, "[o]n January 26, 2018, the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of MN approved [Defendant]
Gander Mountain's plan of distribution and dissolution.
As such, all claims against [Defendant] Gander Mountain are
discharged, and [Defendant] Gander Mountain should be
dismissed from the case." See Dkt. No. 20 at 1.
Defendant's counsel also informed the Court that
Defendant intended to file a motion seeking dismissal of this
action within three weeks. See Id. Magistrate Judge
Baxter directed Defendant to file any dispositive motions or
a further status report by April 13, 2018. See Dkt.
April 11, 2018, Defendant filed the pending motion for
summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 22. On May 7, 2018,
the Court issued a Motion Scheduling Order, notifying counsel
that the Court would hear oral argument in this case on June
18, 2018. See Motion Scheduling Notice dated May 7,
noted, on September 21, 2016, Plaintiff commenced this action
against Defendant and an unspecified number of John and/or
Jane Doe Defendants in state court. Defendant removed the
case to this Court on October 21, 2016, nearly twenty months
ago. During this entire time, Plaintiff has never sought to
amend his complaint to replace the John and Jane Doe
Defendants with the actual names of the individuals who, he
alleges, caused his injuries. In light of the passage of time
and Plaintiff's failure to identify these individuals,
the Court sua sponte dismisses Plaintiff's
claims against all of the John and/or Jane Doe Defendants.
Defendant's motion ...