Tannehill v. Simmons Bank

Opinion

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

DONALD TANNEHILL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated PLAINTIFF

No. 3:19-cv-140-DPM

SIMMONS BANK DEFENDANT

ORDER The Court appreciates the parties’ helpful joint status report, and notes the motion to amend. Tannehill’s claims abated at his November 2019 death. They can be revived by a timely motion to substitute. FED. R. Civ. P. 25(a); In re Baycol Products Litigation, 616 F.3d 778, 785 (8th Cir. 2010); McDonald v. Pettus, 337 Ark. 265, 279, 988 S.W.2d 9, 16 (1999). The Court’s March deadline was meant to nudge things along; it is not dispositive. The deadline for substitution remains 5 May 2020—ninety days after Tannehill’s death was suggested on the record. Atkins v. City of Chicago, 547 F.3d 869, 873 (7th Cir. 2008). The motion to amend, Doc. 36, is denied without prejudice as premature. There is nothing to amend at the moment because Tannehill’s claims have abated. No class has been certified. The Final Scheduling Order, Doc. 29, is therefore suspended and the case is stayed. The Court awaits the planned motion to substitute, which can be joined to a motion to amend that proposes the additional plaintiff, too.

So Ordered. AMA, we _ D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 40 Marth 2020

_2-