Opinion
Civil Action 23-1420
09-26-2023
PAMELA HOOKS, Plaintiff, v. RDS AUTOMOTIVE GROUP MASERATI OF THE MAINLINE, Defendant.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2023, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Motion by Defendant RDS Enterprises III LP for leave to file a reply brief (ECF 25) is GRANTED and the Court considers the Reply at ECF 25-1 as if it has been filed;
Plaintiff incorrectly identifies Defendant as “RDS Automotive Group Maserati of the Mainline.”
2. Plaintiff s Motion (ECF 22) seeking to further amend the paper docketed at ECF 20 is DENIED. The Court struck the paper at ECF 20 because Plaintiff lacked Defendant's consent or the Court's permission to file it (see ECF 21);
3. Upon consideration of Defendant's Motion (ECF 14) seeking to dismiss the Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Pamela Hooks (which the court liberally construes to consist of the documents filed at both ECF 8 and 9), Plaintiffs Response in opposition to Defendant's Motion (ECF 23), Defendants' Reply (ECF 25-1), and Plaintiffs Sur-reply (ECF 27), and consistent with the accompanying Memorandum of Law, it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion (ECF 14) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. If Plaintiff can allege sufficient facts to state a claim, she may file a Second Amended Complaint, if any, on or before Tuesday, October 10, 2023.
Any Second Amended Complaint must be a single document bearing a caption with the Court s name and the names of the parties that lists Plaintiff s claims in numbered paragraphs consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10. Claims or allegations that are not included in a Second Amended Complaint will not be considered part of this case.