Hufford v. JP Management Group, Inc.

S.D. Ohio

Hufford v. JP Management Group, Inc.

DecidedMarch 17, 2022

Docket3:20-cv-00022

StatusUnknown

This text of Hufford v. JP Management Group, Inc. (Hufford v. JP Management Group, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hufford v. JP Management Group, Inc., (S.D. Ohio 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON NATASHA HUFFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:20-cv-22 vs. JP MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., District Judge Michael J. Newman Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. Defendant.

ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF NATASHA HUFFORD’S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE AS PLAINTIFF (DOC. NO. 55); (2) DIRECTING TRUSTEE FRIESINGER TO ENTER AN APPERANCE; (3) GRANTING TRUSTEE FRIESINGER LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER; AND (4) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO HUFFORD’S CLAIMS (DOC. NO. 47)

This motion is before the Court on Plaintiff Natasha Hufford’s motion to substitute Patricia Friesinger, Esq., Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee for Hufford’s bankruptcy estate, as the real party in interest and Plaintiff in this matter. Doc. No. 55. Defendant filed an opposition memorandum. Doc. No. 56. Plaintiff did not offer a reply brief, and the time for doing so has passed. S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(2). This motion is ripe for review. Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3), 21, and 25(c), the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to substitute. Trustee Friesinger is DIRECTED to enter an appearance and GRANTED LEAVE to file an amended complaint within 14 days from the date of this Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Also pending is Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 motion for summary judgment as to Hufford’s claims. Doc. No. 47. That motion is fully briefed and ripe for review. Doc. Nos. 50,

52, 54. Defendant argues that Hufford lacks standing to bring her claims as a real party in interest after forfeiting that right upon filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Doc. No. 47 at PageID 433. Because Trustee Friesinger has now been substituted as Plaintiff in this litigation, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. See, e.g., Auday v. Wet Seal Retail, Inc., 698 F.3d 902, 904 (2012). IT ISSO ORDERED. Date: _March 17, 2022 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON NATASHA HUFFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:20-cv-22 vs. JP MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., District Judge Michael J. Newman Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. Defendant.

ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF NATASHA HUFFORD’S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE AS PLAINTIFF (DOC. NO. 55); (2) DIRECTING TRUSTEE FRIESINGER TO ENTER AN APPERANCE; (3) GRANTING TRUSTEE FRIESINGER LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER; AND (4) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO HUFFORD’S CLAIMS (DOC. NO. 47)

This motion is before the Court on Plaintiff Natasha Hufford’s motion to substitute Patricia Friesinger, Esq., Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee for Hufford’s bankruptcy estate, as the real party in interest and Plaintiff in this matter. Doc. No. 55. Defendant filed an opposition memorandum. Doc. No. 56. Plaintiff did not offer a reply brief, and the time for doing so has passed. S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(2). This motion is ripe for review. Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3), 21, and 25(c), the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to substitute. Trustee Friesinger is DIRECTED to enter an appearance and GRANTED LEAVE to file an amended complaint within 14 days from the date of this Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Also pending is Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 motion for summary judgment as to Hufford’s claims. Doc. No. 47. That motion is fully briefed and ripe for review. Doc. Nos. 50,

52, 54. Defendant argues that Hufford lacks standing to bring her claims as a real party in interest after forfeiting that right upon filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Doc. No. 47 at PageID 433. Because Trustee Friesinger has now been substituted as Plaintiff in this litigation, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. See, e.g., Auday v. Wet Seal Retail, Inc., 698 F.3d 902, 904 (2012). IT ISSO ORDERED. Date: _March 17, 2022 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hufford v. JP Management Group, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hufford-v-jp-management-group-inc-ohsd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack