Charlotte Murphy v. Joseph Patrick Murphy and Crystal Murphy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE CHARLOTTE MURPHY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) No. 3:24-CV-459-JEM ) JOSEPH PATRICK MURPHY and ) CRYSTAL MURPHY, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the consent of the parties, for all further proceedings, including entry of judgment [Doc. 30].

On November 15, 2024, the Court entered the Order Governing Motions to Dismiss and directed the parties “to meet and confer prior to the filing of a motion to dismiss” [Doc. 3 p. 1].

On September 5, 2025, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (“Motion to Dismiss”) and certified that they had met and conferred as required [Doc. 24]. Later, on September 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Memorandum of Law [Doc. 31]. Defendants did not file a reply.

Upon review of the parties’ filings, it appears that the parties may not have participated in a good faith meet and confer as required by the Court’s Order Governing Motions to Dismiss [Doc. 3]. See Brady v. LTD Parts, Inc., No. 2:08-0058, 2009 WL 2224172, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. July 22, 2009) (noting that the meet and confer requirement is not an “empty formality,” and that the parties are required to participate in a “meaningful meet and confer”). For instance, Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's breach of contract claim [See Doc 26 pp. 11-16].

But Plaintiff responds that she did not allege a breach of contract claim [Doc. 31 p. 11].

The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 24]. See Rives v. Univ. of Tenn., et al., No. 3:22-CV-414, Doc. 21 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 10, 2023) (striking the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to meet and confer prior to filing); see also Neale v. Coloplast Corp., No. 1:18-cv-00274, 2020 WL 8771652, at *1-2 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 3, 2020) (denying motion to compel for failure to adequately meet and confer); Scott v. Abernathy Motorcycle Sales, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-01077, 2019 WL 12056315, at *4 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 18, 2019) (“The failure to confer in good faith is grounds alone for denying the motion.”). The Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer in person, telephonically, or by video conference by April 17, 2026, in accordance with Order Governing Motions to Dismiss [Doc. 3]. Defendants SHALL file a response to the Complaint on or before May 8, 2026. Any motion to dismiss filed by Defendants SHALL include the required certification [Doc. 3]. All other deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order [Doc. 36] remain in place.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER: Tie at pi E. McCook nited States Magistrate Judge