United States District Court, D. South Carolina
E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge Florence, South
an action filed by a pro se non-prisoner litigant.
Under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina, pretrial
proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned
United States Magistrate Judge.
is associated with a group of Plaintiffs who claim prior
employment with or ownership of the business Skydive Myrtle
Beach. These individuals each filed actions based on the same
claims and facts against the same sixty-six defendants.
See Davis v. Horry County Council, et al, No.
4:17-391-RBH-TER; Herdt v. Horry County Council, et
al, No. 4:17-392-RBH; Karahalios v. Horry County
Council, et al, No. 4:17-393-RBH-TER; Ringley v.
Horry County Council, et al, No. 4:17-395-RBH-TER;
Holly v. Horry County Council, et al, No.
4:17-396-RBH-TER; Herzog v. Horry County Council, et
al, No. 4:17-398-RBH-TER; Boulineau v. Horry County
Council, et al, No. 4:17-394-RBH; Dron, v. Horry
County Council, et al, No. 4:17-397-RBH; Bracey, v.
Horry County Council, et al, No. 4:17-399-RBH-TER;
Guillen v. Horry County Council, et al, No.
4:17-400-RBH; Clarke v. Horry County Council, et al,
motions, both dispositive and non-dispositive, have been
filed in this action. All pretrial proceedings in this case
were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule
Motion for Settlement (ECF No. 51)
asks the court to order the parties to a settlement
conference “as soon as the summary judgment stage has
commenced” to try and resolve this case. At this stage
of the litigation, multiple Defendants who have made an
appearance have filed motions to dismiss. If this action
survives some or all of those motions, a scheduling order
will be entered along with an order to conduct mediation. As
such, this motion is denied as premature.
Motions for Leave to File Excess Pages (ECF Nos. 54,
moves for leave to file excess pages with respect to her
responses to the motions to dismiss and her own motion for
summary judgment. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.05(B),
D.S.C., “no memorandum shall exceed thirty-five (35)
double-spaced pages, in the case of an initial brief of any
party, ” which includes both motions and responses.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 56) does
not exceed thirty-five pages. Thus, her second motion (ECF
No. 69) is moot. Plaintiff's only response to
Defendants' motions to dismiss to exceed thirty-five
pages is ECF No. 89, which is thirty-eight pages. Thus, her
first motion (ECF No. 54) is granted as to ECF No. 89 and
moot as to her remaining response (ECF Nos. 72).
Richard Allen, Jack Griffin, Glenn Ray, Robinson Aviation,
Bill Tiller, Phill Zell's Motion for Discovery Under Rule
56(d) (ECF No. 60) and Defendant Horry County Council's
Motion to Stay (ECF No. 68)
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 74). In
response, Defendants Richard Allen, Jack Griffin, Glenn Ray,
Robinson Aviation, Bill Tiller, Phill Zell (Robinson Aviation
Defendants) filed a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d),
indicating that Plaintiff's motion was premature and
asking that the court either deny the motion as such or, in
the alternative, defer ruling on the motion and permit time
for limited discovery prior to requiring a response to the
motion. The court notes that several motions to dismiss are
currently pending in this case and a scheduling order has not
yet been entered. As such, Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is premature. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is
granted and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is
denied as premature with leave to refile following the
completion of discovery. For the same reasons,
Plaintiff's Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 81) is denied as well.
Defendant Horry County Council's motion to stay deadlines
and the entry of a scheduling order is granted as to his
request to stay the entry of a scheduling order. Other
deadlines that may arise, such as deadlines to respond to
motions or other deadlines established by the court, are not
reasons discussed above,
• Plaintiff's Motion for Settlement (ECF No. 51) is