Mark A. Franklin v. MNS89, Inc.

E.D. Arkansas

Mark A. Franklin v. MNS89, Inc.

DecidedApril 3, 2026

Docket4:25-cv-00853

StatusUnknown

This text of Mark A. Franklin v. MNS89, Inc. (Mark A. Franklin v. MNS89, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mark A. Franklin v. MNS89, Inc., (E.D. Ark. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

MARK A. FRANKLIN PLAINTIFF

No. 4:25-cv-853-DPM MNS89, INC. DEFENDANT ORDER The Court regrets its delay in tending to the pending motions. The case has gotten tangled up in the meantime. First, Franklin’s first motion to amend, Doc. 13, is denied as moot. Franklin’s second motion to amend, Doc. 16, is granted as modified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). His verified notice, Doc. 18, is a clear statement of facts and list of legal claims. The Court designates this document as his amended complaint. (The Court directs the Clerk to update the docket). The Title VII claims have been abandoned. Franklin presses various claims about his work for MN89. His wage-and-hour claims provide subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. MN89 must answer, or file a Rule 12 motion, by 1 May 2026. Second, MN89’s motion to dismiss for improper venue, Doc. 6, is denied without prejudice. It was based on Franklin’s now-abandoned Title VII claims and that statute’s specific venue provision. Third, Frankin’s motion for appointed counsel, Doc. 8, is denied without prejudice. The case is young. Neither the facts nor the

applicable law is complex. Plummer v. Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996). The Court already granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 5 at 1. So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 3 Awl 20ale

~2-

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

MARK A. FRANKLIN PLAINTIFF

No. 4:25-cv-853-DPM MNS89, INC. DEFENDANT ORDER The Court regrets its delay in tending to the pending motions. The case has gotten tangled up in the meantime. First, Franklin’s first motion to amend, Doc. 13, is denied as moot. Franklin’s second motion to amend, Doc. 16, is granted as modified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). His verified notice, Doc. 18, is a clear statement of facts and list of legal claims. The Court designates this document as his amended complaint. (The Court directs the Clerk to update the docket). The Title VII claims have been abandoned. Franklin presses various claims about his work for MN89. His wage-and-hour claims provide subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. MN89 must answer, or file a Rule 12 motion, by 1 May 2026. Second, MN89’s motion to dismiss for improper venue, Doc. 6, is denied without prejudice. It was based on Franklin’s now-abandoned Title VII claims and that statute’s specific venue provision. Third, Frankin’s motion for appointed counsel, Doc. 8, is denied without prejudice. The case is young. Neither the facts nor the

applicable law is complex. Plummer v. Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996). The Court already granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 5 at 1. So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 3 Awl 20ale

~2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mark A. Franklin v. MNS89, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-a-franklin-v-mns89-inc-ared-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack