UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

WALTER SNYDER and )

DONNA SNYDER, )

Plaintiffs, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-376-RLM-JEM 

v. )

)

CATERPILLAR INC., )

GUARDAIR CORPORATION, )

JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE, )

Defendants. )

FINDINGS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C)

This matter is before the Court on a Defendant Caterpillar Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, or in

the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement [DE 6], filed by Defendant Caterpillar on May

10, 2013. 

On June 24, 2013, District Court Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr., entered an Order [DE 15]

referring this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation on the

instant motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). This Report constitutes the undersigned

Magistrate Judge’s combined proposed findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C). For the following reasons, the Court recommends that the District Court deny the

motion as moot.

On July 8, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend Complaint to address the concerns raised

by Defendant Caterpillar in its Motion to Dismiss, and in its response Defendant Caterpillar agreed

that the Amended Complaint address the issues it raised. The Motion to Amend Complaint was

granted on July 23 2013, and Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint on July 24, 2013. 

Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is now moot, as is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File
Plaintiffs’ Amended Memorandum of Law in opposition to Defendant Caterpillar, Inc.’s Motion to

Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave

to File Plaintiffs’ Amended Memorandum of Law in opposition to Defendant Caterpillar, Inc.’s

Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement [DE 19] and 

RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY as moot Defendant Caterpillar Inc.’s Motion to

Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement [DE 6].

This Report and Recommendation is submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days after being served with

a copy of this Recommendation to file written objections thereto with the Clerk of Court. The

failure to file a timely objection will result in waiver of the right to challenge this Recommendation

before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. Willis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902,

904 (7th Cir. 1999); Hunger v. Leininger, 15 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 1994); The Provident Bank v.

Manor Steel Corp., 882 F.2d 258, 260-261 (7th Cir. 1989); Lebovitz v. Miller, 856 F.2d 902, 905

n.2 (7th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiffs are also REMINDED of the need to comply with all applicable rules and

instructions for electronic filing, available in the CM/ECF User Manual on the Court’s website. The

Manual provides, “[i]n order to file a document which requires leave of court . . . , the proposed

document shall be attached as an exhibit to a motion.” N.D. Ind. CM/ECF Civil & Crim. User

Manual II(A)(5), at p. 4. Instead of properly filing it as an attachment to their Motion for Leave to

File Amended Memorandum, Plaintiffs filed their proposed Amended Memorandum as a separate

docket entry, without leave of Court to do so.

2
SO ORDERED this 29th day of July, 2013. 

s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

3