Bowman v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:25-CV-00029-MEO-DCK
BENJAMIN B. BOWMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CHARLOTTE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on ten pending motions. (Doc. Nos. 69, 81, 84, 110,
117, 125, 138, 155, 157, 163). The Court held a status conference on February 17, 2026, with
counsel for all parties present. Plaintiff Benjamin B. Bowman was present, proceeding pro se.
Counsel for Defendant City of Charlotte (the “City”) and the City Agent Defendants1 was present.
Counsel for The Providence Group and Bernie Smith (collectively, the “Providence Defendants”)
was also present. The Court considered the motions and provided oral rulings in open court. At the
request of the parties and for clarity as to the rulings announced in open court, the Court hereby
provides this written order summarizing and updating the Court’s February 17 rulings as to the
Parties’ motions. The Court hereby orders as follows:
1 Vi Lyles, Anthony Foxx, Jessica Battle, Bryan Abramson, Travis Archer, Xao Tao, Johhny
Jennings, and Joanne Franze 1 (collectively, the “City Agent Defendants”). Defendants assert the
case caption and Complaint misspell “Franze” as “Fransy.” (Doc. No. 117 at 1 n.1). The Court will
therefore refer to Defendant “Joanne Fransy” as “Joanne Franze.” The Clerk is respectfully
directed to update the case caption. The Providence Group asserts that the correct name of “The
Providence Group” is Providence Group Management Services, LLC. (Doc. No. 84 at 1). The
Clerk is respectfully directed to update the case caption accordingly.
Case 3:25-cv-00029-MEO-DCK Document 164 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 6

2
I. 	Motions to Compel by Plaintiff and Defendants
Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from the Providence Defendants
and the City of Charlotte on July 23, 2025. (Doc. No. 69). After hearing from the parties, the Court
denied that motion as moot.
Defendant City of Charlotte filed its Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Plaintiff
and for Sanctions on August 4, 2025. (Doc. No. 81). The Court denied the motion for sanctions
but granted the motion to compel and ordered Plaintiff to complete the following four actions by
the end of the day on February 20, 2026:
(1) Provide the name and contact information of any provider that has diagnosed Plaintiff
with any of the medical conditions related to the lawsuit;
(2) Sign a release allowing Defendants to obtain all relevant unredacted records from his
medical providers involving his alleged medical conditions related to the lawsuit;
(3) Provide all relevant documentation related to the training and any certification of the
service animal in question in this lawsuit; and
(4) Respond in substance to the interrogatories of the Defendants.
The Providence Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or, Alternatively, to Compel
Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures and Discovery Responses on August 5, 2025. (Doc. No. 84). The
Court denied the motion to dismiss and the motion for sanctions, granted the motion to compel,
and ordered Plaintiff to complete the same four actions and provide the Providence Defendants
with the same information as ordered by the Court regarding Defendant City of Charlotte’s Motion
to Compel Discovery Responses from Plaintiff and for Sanctions (Doc. No. 81).
II. 	Motions to Strike
The Providence Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Second Opposition to
Case 3:25-cv-00029-MEO-DCK Document 164 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and in the Alternative for an
Enlargement of the Time to File a Reply to Plaintiff’s Second Opposition to Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss on October 28, 2025. (Doc. No. 110). The Court granted the motion because Plaintiff’s
filing was untimely, Plaintiff had been granted an extension by the Magistrate Judge but failed to
file by the extended deadline, and the filing was an amended response seeking to supplement
Plaintiff’s prior response already before the Court. The Court denied the City’s motion for
sanctions.
III. 	Motions to Dismiss
The City Agent Defendants who had been served with the lawsuit filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint on November 5, 2025, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6).
(Doc. No. 117). These City Agent Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for
intentional infliction of emotional distress and for civil conspiracy to violate civil rights. For the
reasons stated at the conference, the Court granted the City Agent Defendants’ motion.
City Agent Defendants Foxx, Abramson, and Tao filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Service of Process on January 20, 2026 (Doc. No. 155). On January 23, 2026, Plaintiff
filed a Motion to Deem Service Effective, or Alternately, for an Order Directing Service by the
U.S. Marshals. (Doc. No. 157). After hearing from the parties and after further analysis, the Court
takes both motions under advisement and holds the decision on both motions in abeyance.2
The Court has further analyzed the service of process issue and Plaintiff’s claims in the
Amended Complaint as to these three City Agent Defendants. The Court hereby gives notice to
the Plaintiff that the Court is likely to dismiss the claims against Foxx, Abramson, and Tao
2 While the Court initially granted the Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Service of Process
(Doc. No. 155) during the February 17 hearing, the Court hereby vacates this oral order because
the motion’s viability depends on the Court’s resolution of Plaintiff’s service-related motion (Doc.
No. 157).
Case 3:25-cv-00029-MEO-DCK Document 164 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 6

4
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, for the same
reasons the Court granted the motion to dismiss by the other City Agent Defendants. The Court
hereby grants Plaintiff until end of day Wednesday, February 25, 2026 to file a brief setting forth
the reasons, if any, why the Court should not dismiss the Amended Complaint as to these three
additional City Agent Defendants. Such brief may be no more than seven pages in length, and no
extensions of this deadline will be entertained by the Court.
IV. 	Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
Plaintiff filed a Request for Leave to Amend Complaint on December 29, 2025. (Doc. No.
138). The Court denied the motion as untimely.
V. 	Motion to Continue Trial
The Providence Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Continue the Trial and Reset Pretrial
Deadlines on February 9, 2026. (Doc. No. 163). The Court granted the motion and set new
deadlines. As ordered at the hearing, all discovery shall be complete no later than April 20, 2026;
all dispositive motions shall be filed no later than May 20, 2026; and the jury trial in this matter is
reset for this Court’s trial term beginning October 26, 2026.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Doc. No. 69) is DENIED;
2. 	Defendant City of Charlotte’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for
Sanctions (Doc. No. 81) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, it
is GRANTED as to the motion to compel and DENIED as to the motion for sanctions;
3. 	The Providence Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, to Compel Plaintiff’s
Initial Disclosures and Discovery Responses (Doc. No. 84) is GRANTED in part and
Case 3:25-cv-00029-MEO-DCK Document 164 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 6

5
DENIED in part. Specifically, it is GRANTED as to the Motion to Compel and
DENIED as to the motion to dismiss and for other sanctions;
4. 	The Providence Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Second Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and in the Alternative
for an Enlargement of the Time to File a Reply to Plaintiff’s Second Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 110) is GRANTED and the Court hereby
STRIKES the docket entry at (Doc. No. 109);
5. 	Defendant City of Charlotte’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Reply Brief and for Sanctions
(Doc. No. 125) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, it is
GRANTED as to the motion to strike and DENIED as to the motion for sanctions.
The Court hereby STRIKES the docket entry at (Doc. No. 122);
6. 	The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Jessica
Battle, Travis Archer, Vi Lyles, Johnny Jennings, and Joanne Franze (Doc. No. 117) is
GRANTED and the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED as to these Defendants;
7. 	The Court VACATES its oral order as to the Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Service of Process filed by Anthony Foxx, Bryan Abramson, and Xao Tao’s Renewed
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Service of Process (Doc. No. 155) and that motion is
HELD IN ABEYANCE while the Court takes it further under advisement;
8. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Service Effective, or Alternatively, for an Order Directing
Service by the U.S. Marshals (Doc. No. 157) is HELD IN ABEYANCE while the
Court takes it further under advisement;
9. 	Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 138) is DENIED;
Case 3:25-cv-00029-MEO-DCK Document 164 Filed 02/18/26 Page 5 of 6

6
10. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Continue the Trial and Reset Pretrial Deadlines (Doc. No.
163) is GRANTED and trial is CONTINUED. The Clerk is directed to reset the trial
in this matter for this Court’s trial term beginning October 26, 2026 term; and
11. This case shall proceed toward trial on the merits of the remaining claims in the
absence of a voluntary resolution of the dispute among the parties.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: February 18, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00029-MEO-DCK Document 164 Filed 02/18/26 Page 6 of 6