IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

MICHELLE LEAL, ) Cause No. 2:13-cv-318

Plaintiff )

)

-v- )

)

TSA STORES, INC., d/b/a )

THE SPORTS AUTHORITY, )

URBAN EXPRESS ASSEMBLY, )

LLC and EAST COAST )

CYCLE SUPPLY, INC. )

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT, URBAN EXPRESS ASSEMBLY’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO 

THIS HONORABLE COURT’S ORDER DATED MAY 14, 2014

Plaintiff, Michelle Leal, by counsel, Colby A. Barkes, of Blachly, Tabor, Bozik & 

Hartman, LLC, pursuant to this Honorable Court’s Order dated May 14, 2014, respectfully 

requests the Court allow the filing of Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s, Urban 

Express Assembly, LLC, Motion for Summary Judgment, which is submitted as an attachment

(Attachment “A”) to this Motion, along with Plaintiff’s Appendix in Support (Attachment “B)

and exhibits thereto, and in support of this request, Plaintiff states as follows:

1. Defendants TSA Stores, Inc., d/b/a The Sports Authority (“TSA”) and East Coast 

Cycle Supply, Inc. (“East Coast”), have indicated they did not object to Plaintiff filing for leave 

to submit her Response Brief and supporting Appendix, and have further indicated they would 

prefer the same to the alternative of filing additional cross-motions pursuant to Meinert v. U. S.

Steel Corp., 2014 WL 772613 (Feb. 25, 2014).

1
2. Defendant, Urban Express Assembly LLC (“Urban Express”) will not be 

prejudiced by this filing since there is no hearing date; discovery continues; and the other 

Defendants, TSA and East Coast, had previously filed their own response that is of similar

content and/or substantially the same, and Urban Express had previously replied thereto. 

3. The Court’s Order dated May 14, 2014, suggests that Plaintiff may wish to file the 

attached Response Brief and further suggested Plaintiff request leave to file same in order to 

address the issues presented in Meinert.

4. It appears from Meinert that in order to avoid the need for Defendants, TSA and 

East Coast to file cross-motions to preserve objections to a Motion for summary judgment the 

Plaintiff needs to respond to same. Id. Plaintiff did not respond to Urban Express’ motion 

originally. In order to increase judicial efficiency and dispense with the need for Defendants, 

TSA and East Coast to file cross motions to preserve their individual responses to Urban 

Express’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff seeks leave to file the attached Response Brief 

and supporting Appendix. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully requests that this Court grant her leave 

of Court to file a Response Brief, and requests the Court allow the filing of Plaintiff’s Response 

in Opposition to Defendant’s, Urban Express Assembly, LLC, Motion for Summary Judgment

(submitted as Attachment “A” hereto) along with Plaintiff’s Appendix in Support of Plaintiff’s 

Response in Opposition to Defendant’s, Urban Express Assembly, LLC, Motion for Summary 

Judgment and its exhibits, (submitted as Attachment “B” hereto), and for all other just and 

proper relief in the premises.

2
Respectfully Submitted,

BLACHLY, TABOR, BOZIK & HARTMAN

/s/ Colby A. Barkes

Colby A. Barkes (Atty. No. 26251-64)

56 South Washington St., Suite 401

Valparaiso, In 46383

Tel: (219) 464-1041

Fax: (219) 464-0927

cabarkes@lawyersonthesquare.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 13th day of June 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification to the following CM/ECF 

participants: Daniel G. Suber: Suberlawgroup@aol.com; Brock P. 

Alvarado: bpalvarado@kopkalaw.com and Rick D. Meils: rmeils@meilsattorney.com

BLACHLY, TABOR, BOZIK & HARTMAN

By: /s/ Colby A. Barkes

3