United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, El Dorado Division
THURMAN FULLER, et al. PLAINTIFFS
v.
LION OIL TRADING & TRANSPORTATION, LLC DEFENDANT
ORDER
Susan
O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge
Before
the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed September 9,
2019, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States
Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF
No. 28). Judge Bryant recommends that the Court deny
Plaintiffs’ pending motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs have not filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation, and the time to object has passed.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Also
before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of
time to respond. (ECF No. 29). The Court finds that no
response is necessary. The Court finds that the above-listed
matters are ripe for consideration.
I.
BACKGROUND
On May
15, 2019, Plaintiffs, seven siblings who are each
representing him or herself pro se, brought this
action. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, to recover
unpaid royalties from Defendant that were allegedly paid to
Plaintiffs’ other siblings, who are not parties to this
case. On August 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, seeming to request that the Court certify a
class consisting of themselves. (ECF No. 24). On August 28,
2019, Defendant responded, indicating that it opposes the
motion.
On
September 9, 2019, Judge Bryant issued the instant Report and
Recommendation, in which he recommends that the Court deny
Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On
September 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a
sixty-day extension of time to respond to Defendant’s
opposition to their class certification motion. (ECF No. 29).
II.
DISCUSSION
As a
preliminary matter, the Court wishes to note that
Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and motion
for extension of time were signed only by Plaintiff Clara
Fuller. “Every pleading, written motion, and other
paper must be signed by at least one attorney of
record” or, alternatively, by every self-represented
party filing the paper. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a). Additionally, the
paper must state all signers’ addresses, e-mail
addresses, and telephone numbers. Id. Importantly, a
pro se party cannot sign a document on behalf of
another pro se party. Alexander v. Medtronic,
Inc., No. 2:12-CV-4104-NKL, 2012 WL 2049827, at *2 (W.D.
Mo. June 6, 2012). An unsigned paper that violates Rule 11
must be stricken unless the omission is promptly corrected
after being called to the attorney or party’s
attention. Id.
Plaintiffs’
motion for class certification and motion for extension of
time were docketed as filed by all Plaintiffs. However, only
Plaintiff Clara Fuller, a non-lawyer as far as the Court can
tell, signed the motions. She is not the other
Plaintiffs’ attorney and her own signature does not
suffice for them for purposes of Rule 11(a).[1] Ordinarily in
situations like this, the Court would direct the Clerk of
Court to mail copies of the motions to all Plaintiffs who
have not signed them and grant them an opportunity to sign
and return the motions. See Becker v. Montgomery,
532 U.S. 757, 760 (2001) (noting that “Rule 11(a)
permits [a litigant] to submit a duplicate containing his
signature” to remedy noncompliance with Rule
11(a)’s signature requirement). The Court will not do
so in this instance because it would only serve to delay the
resolution of the instant motions. As will be detailed below,
the Court’s analysis and rulings would be the same
regardless of whether or not all Plaintiffs have signed the
pending motions. However, Plaintiffs should ensure that all
future filings in this case are signed by all Plaintiffs to
avoid any further issues under Rule 11(a).
The
Court will now address Plaintiffs’ motion for an
extension of time. Then the Court will take up Judge
Bryant’s Report and Recommendation.
A.
Motion for Extension of Time
As
discussed above, Plaintiffs request a sixty-day extension of
time to “respond to Defendant’s motion in
opposition to [Plaintiffs’] motion to request class
action certification.” (ECF No. 29). They indicate that
they have other, pending deadlines in cases filed in various
jurisdictions throughout the country and, thus, need more
time to research the issues in this case. Importantly,
Plaintiffs do not request an extension of time to object to
Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendation.
Defendant
has not filed a motion opposing Plaintiffs’ class
certification motion but, rather, it filed a response brief
opposing the motion. Thus, the Court construes the instant
motion solely as seeking an extension of time to file a reply
brief in further support of Plaintiffs’ class
certification motion. In the Western District of Arkansas,
reply briefs are not allowed as a matter of right for any
motion other than motions for summary judgment. Local Rule
7.2(b). Plaintiffs’ class certification motion is not a
summary judgment motion, so Plaintiffs are not entitled to
file a reply brief unless the Court grants leave to do so.
Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with a proposed reply
brief, nor have they discussed what specifically in
Defendant’s response brief they wish to address or what
issues they need sixty days’ time to research. The
Court sees no basis to grant Plaintiffs leave to file a reply
brief and, thus, the Court declines to do so.
Even
assuming arguendo that Local Rule 7.2(b)
contemplated a reply brief in this situation and that leave
from the Court is not required, the reply brief would have
been due seven days after Defendant filed its response on
August 28, 2019. Plaintiffs did not file ...