Heritage Integrity Investment Trust v. Computershare Trust Company, N.A.

Background

The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). That referral covered scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement. The order stated that pretrial motions and applications involving those matters must be made to Judge Moses and comply with her individual practices. It excluded motions to dismiss, motions for judgment on the pleadings, requests for injunctive relief, motions for summary judgment, and motions for class certification.

The court had received a proposed stipulation and scheduling order involving Heritage Integrity Investment Trust and defendants Computershare Trust Company, N.A., Broadridge Financial Solutions, Broadridge Corporate Issuer Solutions, Inc., and Transfer Online, Inc. The court noted that only Computershare’s attorney had entered an appearance. It directed an attorney to enter an appearance for the plaintiff, for Broadridge Financial Solutions and Broadridge Corporate Issuer Solutions, Inc., and for Transfer Online, Inc., all by December 20, 2024.

Unrepresented Parties

The order stated that Isaac Cain was proceeding without a lawyer. It described ways he could file pleadings, letters, and other documents, including by courthouse drop box, mail, or email. It also explained that he could request permission to receive, serve, and file case documents electronically.

The court further stated that Ruwack Irrevocable Trust could not represent itself without a lawyer and required its attorney to enter a notice of appearance by December 20, 2024. The court noted that neither Ruwack nor Cain was a party to the proposed stipulation and scheduling order. If either objected to that schedule, the court required a letter stating the objection by the same deadline.

Pretrial Instructions and Ruling

Judge Moses cautioned the parties and attorneys that discovery must be completed by the court’s discovery deadline and that discovery applications must be made promptly and comply with the applicable local rule and the judge’s individual practices. The order also addressed possible pre-motion conferences, written requests to extend deadlines or adjourn proceedings, page limits for letters and letter-motions, courtesy copies, notice of additional parties or attorneys, and service of the order on defendants who had not appeared.

This was a procedural order concerning pretrial administration. It did not decide the merits of Heritage Integrity Investment Trust’s claims or any defense, and the opinion did not grant or deny a merits motion.