Tannehill v. Simmons Bank

E.D. Arkansas

Tannehill v. Simmons Bank

DecidedMarch 10, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-00140

StatusUnknown

This text of Tannehill v. Simmons Bank (Tannehill v. Simmons Bank) 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

Tannehill v. Simmons Bank, (E.D. Ark. 2020).

Pincite

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-

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 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-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tannehill v. Simmons Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tannehill-v-simmons-bank-ared-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack