Summary
stating that the "Supreme Court has emphasized that amendment" of a pleading "should normally be permitted and has stated that refusal to grant leave without justification is inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules."
Summary of this case from Phillips v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.Opinion
3:04 CV 1199 (JBA).
July 27, 2006
RECOMMENDED RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Familiarity is presumed with this Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Defendant's Motion to Amend Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim, filed yesterday. (Dkt. #133). In light of the conclusions reached in that ruling, plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #96) is denied without prejudice to renewal and defendant's Motion to Strike Affidavit of Joseph C. Dwyer (Dkt. #113) is denied without prejudice to renewal.
The following scheduling order shall enter:
1. Discovery shall be reopened for the limited inquiry into defendant's fraudulent inducement counterclaim; discovery on this limited issues shall close on September 29, 2006.
2. Plaintiff shall file its renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on or before October 31, 2006.
3. Defendant shall file its brief in opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment on or before November 22, 2006.See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (written objections to ruling must be filed within ten days after service of same); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(e) 72; Rule 72.2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut; Small v. Secretary, HHS, 892 F.2d. 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (failure to file timely objection to Magistrate Judge's recommended ruling may preclude further appeal to Second Circuit).