United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
CHAUNCEY C. WYATT, ARLISHER HARVEY, Plaintiffs,
GARY M. APTER, APTER PROPERTIES, JOHN DOES 1-1000, Defendants.
TANYA WALTON PRATT,
Defendants Gary M. Apter and Apter Properties, LLC (“Defendants”) have filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ pro se Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) (Dkt. 9). Defendants allege that federal question jurisdiction does not exist in the present action and all of Plaintiffs’ claims are comprised of Indiana state law claims. Plaintiffs shall have through June 26, 2015 to respond to the Motion.
In conjunction with the foregoing, Plaintiffs should be aware that a failure to timely respond to Defendant's arguments alone warrants dismissal of the lawsuit. See Thomas v. Urban P'ship Bank, 2013 WL 1788522, at *13 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 26, 2013) (collecting cases). “When presented with a motion to dismiss, the non-moving party must proffer some legal basis to support his cause of action.” County of McHenry v. Ins. Co. of the West, 438 F.3d 813, 818 (7th Cir. 2006). For that reason, if a plaintiff does not respond, and the court is “given plausible reasons for dismissing a complaint, [it is] not going to do the plaintiffs research and try to discover whether there might be something to say against the defendants' reasoning.” Kirksey v. RJ. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 1039, 1042 (7th Cir. 1999).
You must file and serve a copy of your response to the Motion to Dismiss by June 26, 2015. If you need more time to respond, you must file a motion with the court asking for more time before the deadline expires. ...