Adv. Proc. No. 07-51597 (PJW), Adv. Proc. No. 07-51603 (PJW), (Consolidated).United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware.
October 13, 2010
L. Jason Cornell, Fox Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, DE, Alan L. Frank, Alan L. Frank Law Associates, P.C., Elkins Park, PA, Attorneys for Montague S., Claybrook, Chapter 7 Trustee for the Estates of American Remanufacturers, Inc., et al.
Michael R. Lastowski, Sommer L. Ross, Duane Morris LLP, Wilmington, DE, Stephan W. Regland, Kristen C. Wright, Bass, Berry Sims PLC, Memphis, TN, Attorneys for Defendants.
PETER WALSH, Chief Judge
Dear Counsel:
This is with respect to Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (Doc. # 242).
While Plaintiff’s conduct in this case has been erratic, to say the least, I believe the best way to conclude this matter is to grant Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED.
In Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel AutoZone to Respond to the Trustee’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion to Strike and for Sanctions, Defendants state that:
the more efficient route would be to simply allow the stay implemented by the Order Approving Stipulation to stand until the Second Motion to Amend is disposed of, and then allow AutoZone to answer the amended complaint and require the Trustee to re-file or amend the Motion for Summary Judgment to accurately reflect his claims and position.
(Doc. # 250, p. 11.) I adopt that view of the matter.
While it does not appear to me that the amended complaint will trigger a need for further discovery, either party is entitled to pursue additional discovery. If the parties cannot agree on a schedule for going forward with this adversary proceeding, you should contact chambers to arrange for a status conference.
Page 1