Buy This Entire Record For
Leal v. TSA Stores, Inc.
United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
December 17, 2014
MICHELLE LEAL, et al. Plaintiff,
TSA STORES, INC. d/b/a THE SPORTS AUTHORITY, URBAN EXPRESS ASSEMBLY, LLC, EAST COAST SUPPLY, INC., YONG QI BICYCLE INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD, GO CONFIGURE, INC., GUHLAM Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM C. LEE, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant, Go Configure, Inc.'s "Motion to Dismiss" filed on October 22, 2014. Plaintiff did not file a response. In its Motion, Go Configure asserts that Plaintiff's claim in her Second Amended Complaint is time-barred.
In anticipation of an upcoming conference with Magistrate Judge Cherry, the undersigned held a conference on December 15, 2014 to discuss the status of this unopposed motion to dismiss as well as the other motions pending in the case. At that conference, Plaintiff's counsel represented that he had no objection to the Court's granting of the motion to dismiss so long as the dismissal was without prejudice. Go Configure's counsel sought a dismissal with prejudice.
Mindful of the standards of review for motions to dismiss, the Court concludes the Motion to Dismiss is well-taken. Even assuming that the facts as plead in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint are true, her claims against Go Configure are barred by the applicable two year statute of limitations. And, because Go Configure is a wholly new defendant in this action, the allegations against Go Configure do not "relate back" to the date the original Complaint was filed so as to permit the claim to fall within ...