Opinion
Case No. 3:09-cv-377.
May 27, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 35).
In part the Motion asserts the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment because the Defendants are in default for want of an answer or other response to the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint was filed on May 13, 2010 (Doc. No. 32). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(3), Defendants time to respond in fourteen days plus three days added because the Amended Complaint was served on them electronically. Defendants' time to respond does not expire, therefore, until June 1, 2010. While Plaintiff may have sent copies by certified mail on May 3, 2010, that mailing is immaterial as Plaintiff did not have leave to file an amended complaint until May 13, 2010.
Plaintiff also bases her Motion on her assertion of a number of facts. For example, she asserts that "Defendants stated in state court that they do not have the Original Promissory Note or the Original Mortgage. . . ." (Motion, Doc. No. 35, PageID 387). A motion for summary judgment must be supported by evidence which would be admissible at trial. Plaintiff's allegation of what Defendants said in state court is not supported by evidence of that quality. Plaintiff's attention is directed to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) and Fed.R.Evid. 602.
Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
In addition, the Court would be very interested in any authority Plaintiff can cite for the proposition in footnote 1 that "United States' law is derived from Roman law."