From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hufford v. JP Mgmt. Grp.

United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio
Mar 17, 2022
3:20-cv-22 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 17, 2022)

Opinion

3:20-cv-22

03-17-2022

NATASHA HUFFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JP MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., Defendant.


Peter B. Silvain, Jr., Magistrate Judge

ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF NATASHA HUFFORD'S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE AS PLAINTIFF (DOC. NO. 55); (2) DIRECTING TRUSTEE FRIESINGER TO ENTER AN APPERANCE; (3) GRANTING TRUSTEE FRIESINGER LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER; AND (4) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO HUFFORD'S CLAIMS (DOC. NO. 47)

Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge

This motion is before the Court on Plaintiff Natasha Hufford's motion to substitute Patricia Friesinger, Esq., Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee for Hufford's bankruptcy estate, as the real party in interest and Plaintiff in this matter. Doc. No. 55. Defendant filed an opposition memorandum. Doc. No. 56. Plaintiff did not offer a reply brief, and the time for doing so has passed. S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(2). This motion is ripe for review.

Upon consideration of the parties' arguments, and pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a)(3), 21, and 25(c), the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to substitute. Trustee Friesinger is DIRECTED to enter an appearance and GRANTED LEAVE to file an amended complaint within 14 days from the date of this Order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).

Also pending is Defendant's Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 motion for summary judgment as to Hufford's claims. Doc. No. 47. That motion is fully briefed and ripe for review. Doc. Nos. 50, 52, 54. Defendant argues that Hufford lacks standing to bring her claims as a real party in interest after forfeiting that right upon filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Doc. No. 47 at PageID 433. Because Trustee Friesinger has now been substituted as Plaintiff in this litigation, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. See, e.g., Auday v. Wet Seal Retail, Inc., 698 F.3d 902, 904 (2012).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hufford v. JP Mgmt. Grp.

United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio
Mar 17, 2022
3:20-cv-22 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 17, 2022)
Case details for

Hufford v. JP Mgmt. Grp.

Case Details

Full title:NATASHA HUFFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JP MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio

Date published: Mar 17, 2022

Citations

3:20-cv-22 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 17, 2022)