Robinson v. Marshall

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama
DecidedMarch 30, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-00365
StatusUnknown

This text of Robinson v. Marshall (Robinson v. Marshall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robinson v. Marshall, (M.D. Ala. 2020).

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

YASHICA ROBINSON, M.D., ) et al., on behalf of ) themselves, their ) patients, physicians, ) clinic administrators, ) and staff, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ) 2:19cv365-MHT ) (WO) STEVEN MARSHALL, in his ) official capacity as ) Alabama Attorney General, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Yashica Robinson, M.D., Alabama Women’s Center, Reproductive Health Services, and West Alabama Women’s Center have moved to file a supplemental complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d). Based upon consideration of the motion and the representations made on the record during the conference call today, the court finds that, on the current record, the proposed supplementation is appropriate because it is based on a “transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of

the pleading to be supplemented,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d); has “some relation” to what is sought to be supplemented, Rowe v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 421 F.2d 937, 943 (4th Cir. 1970); would not prejudice the

defendants; and would promote “the efficient administration of justice,” U.S. ex rel. Gadbois v. PharMerica Corp., 809 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2015). See also 6A Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1504

(3d ed.). However, as the defendants have not had a sufficient opportunity to respond to the motion, the

court will allow them to file objections to this order, and will give the supplementation motion full reconsideration upon receipt of the briefing. ***

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

2 (1) The plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint (doc. no. 72) is granted.

(2) The plaintiffs shall file their proposed supplemental complaint, labelled as a “first amended complaint,” by 5:00 p.m. (central standard time) today. (3) The defendants may file objections to this

order by 5 p.m. (central standard time) on April 1, 2020. The plaintiffs may file a response to the objections by 5:00 p.m. (central standard time) on April 3, 2020.

DONE, this the 30th day of March, 2020.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Robinson v. Marshall, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-marshall-almd-2020.