Mesick et al v. North Carolina State Board of Education et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-647-RJC-DCK
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiffs’ “Response to Motion to
Dismiss - Motion to approve Pro Hac Vice – Objection to counsel Indv. Defendants – Motion to
Enforce Retainer Agreement – Motion to Produce Insurance/Bond” (Document No. 47) filed
January 29, 2024. This filing is before the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the response/motions
and the record, the undersigned will strike the response and deny the motions included therein.
Plaintiffs are appearing in this action without counsel, and this recent filing is inconsistent
with the Local Rules of this Court, as well as the undersigned’s previous Orders. See (Document
Nos. 37, 43, 47). Plaintiff’s filing purports to include a response to pending motion(s) to dismiss
as well as multiple motions for relief. (Document No. 47). Pursuant to the Local Rules, “Motions
shall not be included in responsive briefs. Each motion must be set forth as a separately filed
JOYCE MESICK and CRAIG MESICK, on
behalf of minor child H.M.,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION, DONALD VAN VER
VAART, CATHERINE TRUITT, UNION
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
NC OAH, ANDREW HOULIHAN
HILLARY KOBOTH, LAURA BEACHUM,
and SARAH STALEY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )
)
Case 3:23-cv-00647-GCM-DCK Document 48 Filed 01/30/24 Page 1 of 2

2
pleading.” LCvR 7.1(c)(2). Moreover, it appears the undersigned has recently addressed, and
denied, at least some of the relief requested in this filing. See (Document No. 43).
Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss (Document Nos. 31, 33,
and 35) were due by January 26, 2024. See (Document Nos. 37 and 43). Plaintiffs’ response is
late and fails to properly focus on just the pending motions to dismiss. (Document No. 47). Under
these circumstances, the undersigned will direct that Plaintiffs’ “Response to Motion to
Dismiss…” (Document No. 47) be stricken and that Plaintiffs be allowed a short extension of time
to file a response (or responses) that only address(es) the pending motions to dismiss (Document
Nos. 31, 33, and 35).1
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ “Response to Motion to Dismiss -
Motion to approve Pro Hac Vice – Objection to counsel Indv. Defendants – Motion to Enforce
Retainer Agreement – Motion to Produce Insurance/Bond” (Document No. 47) is STRICKEN,
and the included motions are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file one or more responses directly and
solely addressing Defendants’ arguments for dismissal in Document Nos. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and
36, on or before February 9, 2024.
SO ORDERED.
1 The undersigned notes that Plaintiffs’ response to “Defendant Kroboth’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint” (Document No. 44) is due by February 1, 2024. See (Document No. 46).
Signed: January 30, 2024
Case 3:23-cv-00647-GCM-DCK Document 48 Filed 01/30/24 Page 2 of 2