Opinion ID: 2974322
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendants’ August 7, 2003 Motion to Dismiss

Text: MII, MI, and BWXT filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Complaint on August 7, 2003. All three defendants alleged, among other things, (1) that the plaintiffs’ pleadings violated Rules 8 and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) that 21 of the 24 causes of action pleaded by the plaintiffs failed, per Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. MII and MI also alleged (3) that the district court, per Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The plaintiffs’ response to the motion came in three installments, one for each of the grounds enumerated above, and only after having requested and been granted no fewer than four consecutive three-week extensions by the district court. In granting the last of those extensions on November 12, 2003, with a revised due date of November 16, 2003, the district court cautioned the plaintiffs, No. 05-4181 Nafziger et al. v. McDermott Int’l, Inc. et al. Page 3 in uppercase type, that “NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE PERMITTED.” The plaintiffs nonetheless filed the first of their responses on November 17, 2003, one day after the final deadline had expired. On the same day, the plaintiffs requested two additional extensions for the remaining installments of their response. The district court, true to its word, did not grant either extension at that time. Undeterred, the plaintiffs filed—now without leave of court—the final two installments of their response on November 18 and November 24, 2003, respectively. After a telephonic hearing held on November 24, 2003, the district court retroactively accepted the plaintiffs’ late responses nunc pro tunc. 2. Defendants’ February 20, 2004 Motion to Dismiss BWXTO and individual defendants Peyton Baker, Robert Bergin, and Rich Higgins, all officers and/or supervisors of the defendant companies, filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case against them on February 20, 2004. As in the August 7, 2003 motion to dismiss, all four defendants alleged, among other things, various Rule 8 pleading violations as well as the plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. BWXTO also moved for dismissal, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for insufficient service of process. (Only BWXTO, together with MII, MI, and BWXT, remain in the case as defendants-appellees at this stage in the proceedings.) Yet again, the plaintiffs’ response came in multiple installments and in violation of the courtimposed deadlines. The four responsive memoranda ultimately filed on April 1, 2, 5, and 19, 2004, respectively, were each out of time and without leave of court. Although the plaintiffs had requested another extension two days before the initial deadline of March 13, 2004, the district court refused to honor the request. 3. Plaintiffs’ April 9, 2004 Motion to Amend Complaint On April 9, 2004, in the midst of filing the above-enumerated responses to the February 20, 2004 motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs moved to amend their Complaint to add another cause of action to the 24 already listed. The plaintiffs, after receiving an opposing memorandum filed by the defendants, filed a motion to request yet another extension on the very day that the plaintiffs’ reply was due. True to its initial warning, the district court struck the motion, explaining that the motion not only lacked an accompanying memorandum of law as required by the court’s local rule, but also gave no reason whatsoever for the requested extension. The district court added a brief admonishment to the plaintiffs’ counsel: Plaintiffs’ counsel has previously advised the Court that he will mend his ways and discontinue his frequent requests for extensions of time within which to plead. He has not done so. This Court is entrusted with the responsibility “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,” Federal Rule of Procedure 1. The granting of Plaintiffs’ motion would not accomplish this. 4. District Court’s October 5, 2004 Order regarding the defendants’ motions to dismiss After an August 20, 2004 transfer of venue from the Cincinnati Division to the Dayton Division, the district court handed down its order disposing of the defendants’ two motions to dismiss on October 5, 2004. The district court first dismissed, with prejudice, MII and MI for lack of personal jurisdiction. In addition, the district court dismissed BWXTO for insufficient service of process, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, pursuant to Rules 8(a)(2) and 8(e)(1), the district court dismissed BWXT because of the plaintiffs’ failure “to No. 05-4181 Nafziger et al. v. McDermott Int’l, Inc. et al. Page 4 identify [in their Complaint] which of the named Plaintiffs is bringing several of the Causes of Action.” These last two dismissals were presumably with prejudice as well, because the district court did not specify that they were without prejudice. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) (“Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule . . . operates as an adjudication upon the merits.”). At the end of its order, however, the district court explicitly granted the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their Complaint to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8. The court also provided the following guideposts for compliance: If an amended complaint is submitted, the Defendants must be able to identify the cause of action, specifically which Plaintiffs are bringing the cause of action, specifically which Defendants the cause of action is against and specifically the grounds upon which the cause of action is based. 5. Plaintiffs’ January 5, 2005 motion to accept their amended complaint out of time, and the district court’s subsequent August 3, 2005 Order The 30-day grace period granted by the district court on October 5, 2004 came and went without the submission of an amended complaint from the plaintiffs. They instead reverted to their old ways, requesting, and this time receiving, yet another extension. On November 4, 2004, the date on which the grace period was to expire, the district court granted the plaintiffs an unopposed extension until November 24, 2004. Even this self-specified deadline, however, came and went without the submission of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The pleading was not filed until November 26, 2004, two days late. Three days later, the district court struck the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. Finally, on January 5, 2005, more than five weeks after the district court’s action, the plaintiffs formally moved the court for leave to file out of time or, alternatively, to accept their amended complaint nunc pro tunc. After extensive briefing by the parties, replete with multiple replies and sur-replies, the district court overruled the plaintiffs’ motion and thereby terminated the litigation on August 3, 2005. This timely appeal followed, challenging both the October 5, 2004 Order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss and the August 3, 2005 Order denying the plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint out of time.