Opinion
Civil Action 22-443-BAJ-RLB
08-16-2022
LYDIA MCCOY v. LORRAINE MCCORMICK, ET AL.
ORDER
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court are the following Motions: Defendants Scott McCormick, Lorraine McCormick, and Joseph McCoy's Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 29); Defendant Judge Steven Tureau's Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 30); Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Serve Defendants (R. Doc. 32); Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ECF 29 (R. Doc. 33); Defendants Jill Lambert, June Julien, and Bridget Hanna's Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 35); Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to File Opposition to ECF 29 (R. Doc. 36); Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ECF 30 (R. Doc. 37); Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to File Opposition to ECF 30 (R. Doc. 38); Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Relief and Preliminary Injunction (R. Doc. 42); and Defendant Gina Lee's Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleadings (R. Doc. 54).
Lydia McCoy (“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against several individual Louisiana residents, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, and the Louisiana Supreme Court, alleging that they violated her constitutional rights, violated several federal criminal and state statutes, and intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress in connection with a divorce proceeding in Louisiana state court. (R. Docs. 1, 18).
Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the action should not be dismissed or transferred for lack of proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as it appears the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims did not occur in the District of Oregon. (R. Doc. 39). Magistrate Judge Beckerman subsequently recommended dismissal of this action without prejudice to refiling in the proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a), and the denial of all pending motions as moot. (R. Doc. 47).
On July 5, 2022, District Judge Michael H. Simon adopted the foregoing recommendation in part, and ordered transfer of the action to this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a). (R. Doc. 52).
The Court has reviewed the pending motions in this action. The motions to dismiss filed by the defendants seek, in part, findings of improper venue or lack of personal jurisdiction in the District of Oregon. (See R. Docs. 29, 30, 35). In light of the transfer of this case, many of those arguments are no longer applicable. Accordingly, the parties will be given an appropriate opportunity to re-urge any such Rule 12 motions in light of the change in circumstances. Therefore, the Court will deny these motions without prejudice to refile, within 21 days of the date of this Order, renewed motions to dismiss raising any arguments that have not been made moot by the transfer of the action to this district. In addition, Plaintiff has filed related motions seeking to “strike” the defendants' motions to dismiss or for more time to respond to those motions. (R. Docs. 33, 36, 37, 38). The Court will deny these motions as moot.
Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Serve Defendants filed on April 26, 2022. (R. Doc. 32). The motion seeks a 60-day extension of the deadline to serve certain defendants from the date the motion was filed. The Court will grant this motion under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Given the deadline sought is expired, the Court will provide Plaintiff an additional 30 days from the date of this Order to serve any remaining defendants who have not been served with process.
Also pending before the Court is Defendant Gina Lee's Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleadings filed on July 26, 2022. (R. Doc. 54). Having considered the record, the Court finds good cause under Local Rule 7(a) to extend the deadline for Gina Lee to file responsive pleadings. Defendant Lee has filed a Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 58) on August 16, 2022, so no further action by Defendant Lee is necessary.
Finally, also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Relief and Preliminary Injunction (R. Doc. 42). Prior to transfer, Magistrate Judge Beckerman stayed the deadline to oppose this motion. (R. Doc. 46). Given that the defendants' motions to dismiss were filed prior to this motion, the Court will maintain the stay of the deadline to oppose this motion until after the defendants have had an opportunity to file their renewed motions to dismiss.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Scott McCormick, Lorraine McCormick, and Joseph McCoy's Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 29), Defendant Judge Steven Tureau's Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 30), and Defendants Jill Lambert, June Julien, and Bridget Hanna's Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 35) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refile, within 21 days of the date of this Order, renewed motions to dismiss raising any arguments that have not been made moot by the transfer of the action to this district. Plaintiff shall respond to any renewed motion to dismiss within the time provided by Local Rule 7(f).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ECF 29 (R. Doc. 33), Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to File Opposition to ECF 29 (R. Doc. 36), Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ECF 30 (R. Doc. 37), and Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to File Opposition to ECF 30 (R. Doc. 38) are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Gina Lee's Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleadings (R. Doc. 54) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Serve Defendants (R. Doc. 32) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve all defendants in this action who have not been previously served with process within 30 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Relief and Preliminary Injunction (R. Doc. 42) remains STAYED until further order of the Court.