UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

The Magistrate Judge entered a scheduling order providing that all motions to amend the pleadings must be filed no later than April 4, 2000. On March 3, 2000, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Add a Defendant, which was granted by the Magistrate Judge. The Defendants subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was granted by the Magistrate Judge, in which they stated that the Plaintiffs could not amend the Complaint to bring claims against Peggy Walker because of an Order entered by this court. A subsequent Motion for Leave to Amend, and Motion to Add Peggy Walker as a Necessary Party, filed on April 4, 2000, were denied by the Magistrate Judge on April 6, 2000. The Plaintiffs have objected to the Magistrate Judges rulings, arguing that their ability to amend the Complaint should be governed by the scheduling order in this case.

Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs objections and the record as a whole, the court finds that some clarification is in order. In the Order entered in this case on March 2, 2000, this court stated

In Amendment #2 to the Verified Complaint, the Plaintiffs purport to include Peggy D. Walker as a party defendant. Peggy D. Walker has not previously been named a defendant in this case. In Amendment #2 to the Verified Complaint, the Plaintiffs also allege a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1513(a)(1) against Peggy Walker, a claim which was not previously stated in the Plaintiffs Verified Complaint or the first amendment to the Verified Complaint. These portions of Amendment #2 to the Verified Complaint exceed the scope of this courts February 16, 2000 Order. This courts Order allowed the Plaintiffs to more specifically plead their RICO claims, not to bring in additional parties or to bring additional claims.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the portions of Plaintiffs Amendment #2 to the Verified Complaint which name Peggy D. Walker as a party defendant and which allege any claim against Peggy D. Walker are STRICKEN from Amendment #2 to the Verified Complaint. Factual allegations which mention Peggy D. Walker will remain in Amendment #2 to the Verified Complaint to the extent that they are relevant to the Plaintiffs RICO claims as against defendants who were originally named in the Verified Complaint.

By this Order, the court found that the Plaintiffs had exceeded the scope of this courts previous February 16, 2000, Memorandum Opinion and Order giving them leave to amend. Contrary to the Defendants interpretation of this courts March 2, 2000 Order, upon which the Magistrate Judge also relied, this court did not intend to hold that the Plaintiffs were barred from bringing any motions to amend the Complaint. Such motions, if filed within the time allowed by the scheduling order, should be ruled upon on their merits. Although the Magistrate Judge separately ruled on later-filed motions to amend, which were also within the time allowed for amending the pleadings, the court is unable to ascertain the bases for such rulings. Accordingly, the court concludes that the timely-filed Motions to Amend and Motion to Add Peggy Walker as a Necessary Party should be considered by the Magistrate Judge in light of this courts clarification that it did not intend to bar any motions to amend by the Plaintiffs. To be clear, the court has not expressed any opinion as to the merits of these motions.

The Plaintiffs have also objected to the Magistrate Judges staying discovery in the case pending a ruling on absolute and qualified immunity. The Plaintiffs state that this court allowed the claims to proceed to trial and that the Magistrate Judge is overruling this courts Order. The Plaintiffs misunderstand the nature of this courts Order. As the Plaintiffs point out, the court indicated that certain claims would be allowed "to proceed." See Memorandum Opinion and Order, February 16, 2000, at pages 2 n.1, 9. At no time, however, did the court indicate that the claims were to proceed directly to trial. instead, the claims which proceeded may still be subject to defenses which are raised in properly-filed dispositive motions. While the court did refer in its February 16, 2000 Memorandum Opinion and Order to immunity issues with respect to the contract claim, the court made no determination as to any immunity issues, especially as to the federal law claims. The Magistrate Judge has properly allowed for discovery to be stayed while ruling on the issue of qualified immunity, and the Plaintiffs Objections are due to be overruled on this point.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Objections are SUSTAINED to the extent that the Plaintiffs timely-filed Motions to Amend and to Add Peggy Walker as a Necessary Party are due to be considered by the Magistrate Judge on their merits. The Plaintiffs Objections are OVERRULED in all other aspects and the Plaintiffs Motions for an Injunction Against the Magistrate Judge or Petition for Mandamus are DENIED.

Done this 19^th day of April, 2000.

s/ W. Harold Albritton
Chief United States District Judge
Middle District of Alabama

Return to Child Support Lawsuit page

[ Home]---[Search]---[Email]---[Access Page]---[Child Support]