McMillion v. Thorne Ambulance Services
Plaintiff: Zachary McMillion
Defendant: Thorne Ambulance Services
Case Number: 6:2019cv03154
Filed: November 7, 2019
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Presiding Judge: Jacquelyn D Austin
Referring Judge: Henry M Herlong
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42:2000
Jury Demanded By: Both
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 19, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 19, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 16 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 4/20/2020, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 5/11/2020, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 6/9/2020, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 6/9/2020, Discovery due by 8/10/2020, Motions due by 10/8/2020, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 10/8/2020, Mediation Due by 9/8/2020. This case is subject to being called for jury selection and trial thirty (30) days following the issuance of a Report and Recommendation on any motion described in Paragraph 7 of this Order, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 12/18/2019. (gpre, )
December 18, 2019 Filing 15 Local Rule 26.03 Answers to Interrogatories by Thorne Ambulance Services.(Jenkins, Amy) Modified on 12/18/2019 to remove duplicative text (gpre, ).
December 18, 2019 Filing 14 Rule 26 Outline of Discovery Plan by Thorne Ambulance Services.(Jenkins, Amy) Modified on 12/18/2019 to remove duplicative text (gpre, ).
December 18, 2019 Filing 13 Joint Rule 26(f) Report by Thorne Ambulance Services. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Proposed Amended Scheduling Order)(Jenkins, Amy)
November 25, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 12 TEXT ORDER denying Plaintiff's #10 First Motion to Strike Defenses. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows a court, acting either on its own or on motion made by a party, to "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Thus, whether to grant a motion to strike under Rule 12(f) is within the sound discretion of the court, see GTSI Corp. v. Wildflower Int'l, Inc., No. 1:09CV123, 2009 WL 2160451, at *4 (E.D. Va. July 17, 2009), but striking a defense under Rule 12(f) is generally disfavored because it is a drastic remedy and motions to strike are " 'often sought by the movant simply as a dilatory tactic,' " Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting 5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 1380 at 647 (2d ed. 1990)). "Even if a motion to strike is technically appropriate and well-founded, motions to strike defenses as insufficient are often denied in absence of a showing of prejudice to the moving party." Mitchell v. First Cent. Bank, Inc., No. 2:08CV6, 2008 WL 4145449, at *2 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 8, 2008) (unpublished) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff seeks to have this Court strike defenses outlined in Paragraphs 2, 4, 9, 22, 23, 26, and 28 of Defendant's Answer because he believes, with regard to each, that Defendant is not entitled to the defense, the defense is at odds with settled law, or the defense is not clearly stated. [See Doc. 10.] Plaintiff does not allege any prejudice as a result of Defendant's stated defenses, however. Thus, the Court declines to strike these defenses. In the absence of any alleged prejudice, "a motion to strike in th[is] situation would contravene the established policies disfavoring motions to strike... and favoring the resolution of cases on their merits." Mitchell, 2008 WL 4145449, at *2 (internal quotation marks omitted). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 11/25/2019.(gpre, )
November 22, 2019 Filing 11 RESPONSE in Opposition re #10 First MOTION to Strike defenses Response filed by Thorne Ambulance Services.Reply to Response to Motion due by 12/2/2019 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Jenkins, Amy)
November 19, 2019 Filing 10 First MOTION to Strike defenses by Zachary McMillion. Response to Motion due by 12/3/2019. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order.Motions referred to Jacquelyn D Austin.(Hawkins, Joshua)
November 14, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 9 SCHEDULING ORDER: Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 12/5/2019, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 12/19/2019, Rule 26 Report due by 12/19/2019, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 1/9/2020, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 2/10/2020, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 3/11/2020, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 3/11/2020, Discovery due by 5/11/2020, Mediation Due by 6/10/2020, Motions due by 7/10/2020. This case is subject to being called for jury selection and trial thirty (30) days following the issuance of a Report and Recommendation on any motion described in paragraph 9 of this Order, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 11/14/19. (kmca)
November 8, 2019 Filing 8 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Zachary McMillion.(Jedziniak, Helena)
November 8, 2019 Filing 7 NOTICE and Acknowledgment of receipt of Notice of Removal by Clerk of Court for Greenville County. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - FS & Executed Acknowledgment of Filing Notice of Removal)(Jenkins, Amy)
November 7, 2019 Filing 6 NOTICE by clerk informing plaintiff LR 26.01 interrogatories are due by 11/18/2019. (kric, )
November 7, 2019 Filing 4 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Thorne Ambulance Services.(kric, ) (Main Document 4 replaced on 11/8/2019: to replace with corrected document (footnote size) as provided by filing user) (kmca).
November 7, 2019 Filing 3 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by Thorne Ambulance Services. (kric, ) (Main Document 3 replaced on 11/8/2019: to replace with corrected document (footnote size) as provided by filing user) (kmca).
November 7, 2019 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Greenville County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2019-CP-23-05785. (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0420-8765003), filed by Thorne Ambulance Services. (Attachments: #1 State Court Documents, #2 Notice of Filing Removal)(kric, ) (Main Document 1 replaced on 11/8/2019: to replace with corrected document (footnote size) as provided by filing user) (kmca).

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: McMillion v. Thorne Ambulance Services
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Thorne Ambulance Services
Represented By: David Mittel
Represented By: Amy Yager Jenkins
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Zachary McMillion
Represented By: Helena LeeAnn Jedziniak
Represented By: Joshua Thomas Hawkins
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?