Spencer v. Brott
- David Doty
- 0:17-cv-05035
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Spencer v. Brott, Magistrate Judge Leung ordered three defendants to respond in Spencer II and granted Spencer’s request for both case dockets.
Marvin Spencer; Dr. Todd Leonard; Michell Skroch; Gwen Blossom England; and the Clerk of Court. The three named defendants were required to respond in Spencer II, and the Clerk was directed to provide Spencer with both docket sheets.
What happened
In Spencer v. Brott, Marvin Spencer was pursuing two related cases that had been consolidated. Three defendants—Dr. Todd Leonard, Michell Skroch, and Gwen Blossom England—had responded in one case but not the other.
The court ordered those three defendants to answer or otherwise respond in Spencer II within 10 days. If they did not, Spencer could seek entry of default within 30 days, and the court could recommend dismissing them if neither the defendants nor Spencer took the required steps. The court also granted Spencer’s request for a copy of the docket and directed the Clerk to provide the dockets for both cases.
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued the order on November 21, 2019. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Spencer v. Brott · No. 0:17-cv-05035
- David Doty
- Nov. 21, 2019
Background
Marvin Spencer was litigating two cases against overlapping defendants: Spencer I, No. 17-cv-5035, and Spencer II, No. 17-cv-5220. The cases had previously been consolidated. The court explained that consolidation is for administrative convenience and does not merge separate lawsuits or make a defendant in one case a defendant in the other.
Spencer returned completed service forms for Dr. Todd Leonard, Michell Skroch, and Gwen Blossom England. Notices of the lawsuits and requests to waive service were sent to those defendants in both cases on May 17, 2019. They filed a waiver of service and an answer in Spencer I, but did not file a waiver or answer in Spencer II.
Order concerning responses in Spencer II
The court ordered Dr. Leonard, Skroch, and Blossom England to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in Spencer II within 10 days of the order.
If they did not respond within that period, Spencer was directed to file an application for entry of default or a motion for default in Spencer II within 30 days of the order. If the three defendants failed to respond and Spencer also failed to seek default, the court stated that it would recommend that the three defendants be dismissed from Spencer II. The parties could instead advise the court in writing of any good cause to the contrary.
The order noted that Dr. Diana VanDerBeek had also been included in the waiver and answer in Spencer I, but that she had already been voluntarily dismissed from both cases.
Motion for docket sheets
Spencer moved for a copy of the docket in Spencer I. The court granted that motion and directed the Clerk of Court to provide Spencer with copies of the dockets in both Spencer I and Spencer II.
A separate motion Spencer submitted on November 12, 2019, seeking an updated docket sheet and two copies of another memorandum, remained pending because the court had not received his payment for the requested copies.
Remedies warning and disposition
The order warned that failure to comply with the order or an earlier consistent order could lead to remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney fees, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung entered the order on November 21, 2019. The order addressed service, responses, docket copies, and possible procedural consequences; it did not decide the merits of Spencer’s underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.