Adamson et al v. United States of America, Departmment of the Interior through its Bureau of Reclamation

Filing 178

ORDER - The United States' renewal and reinstatement of # 140 Motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 9/28/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 JUDY KROSHUS, et al., 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. 10 3:08-cv-0246-LDG-RAM (Kroshus I) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 ALICIA UHOUSE, et al., 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 3:08-cv-0285-LDG-RAM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 BILL ADAMSON, et al., 3:08-cv-0621-LDG-RAM (Adamson I) 18 Plaintiffs, 19 v. 20 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 21 Defendant. 22 23 24 25 26 1 1 LARRY J. MOORE, et al., 2 Plaintiffs, 3 v. 4 3:09-cv-0167-LDG-RAM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 5 Defendants. 6 7 JAMES ADGETT, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 3:09-cv-0649-LDG-RAM v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. 11 JUDY KROSHUS, et al., 3:09-cv-0713-LDG-RAM (Kroshus II) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 BILL ADAMSON, et al., 17 18 19 3:09-cv-0715-LDG-RAM (Adamson II) Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 20 Defendant. 21 JASON AMES, et al., 22 Plaintiffs, 23 v. 24 3:10-cv-0463-LDG-RAM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 25 Defendant. 26 2 1 THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that, as it has previously ruled, the court shall reinstate 2 the motions previously denied without prejudice in due course. Accordingly, the following are 3 DENIED without prejudice: 4 The United States’ renewal and reinstatement of motion for summary judgment (#461) in Kroshus v. United States, 3:08-cv-0246-LDG (#673); 5 6 The United States’ renewal and reinstatement of motion for summary judgment (#218) in Uhouse v. United States Department of the Interior, 3:08-cv-285-LDG (#376); 7 The United States’ renewal and reinstatement of motion for summary judgment (#112) in Kroshus v. United States, 3:09-cv-0713-LDG (#286); 8 9 The United States’ renewal and reinstatement of motion to dismiss in Adgett v. United States, 3:09-cv-649-LDG (#137); 10 The United States’ renewal and reinstatement of motion to dismiss in Adamson v. United States, 3:09-cv-715-LDG (#140); and 11 12 The United States’ renewal and reinstatement of motion to dismiss in Ames v. United States, 3:10-cv-463-LDG (#94). 13 THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that a hearing shall be conducted on the United 14 States’ motion for summary judgment in Kroshus v. United States, 3:08-cv-0246-LDG (#461); 15 motion for summary judgment in Uhouse v. United States Department of the Interior, 3:08-cv- 16 285-LDG (#218); and motion for summary judgment in Kroshus v. United States, 3:09-cv-0713- 17 LDG (#112), on Monday, the 14th day of January, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. The location of the 18 hearing shall be set by subsequent minute order. 19 THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that defendants City of Fernley’s and County of 20 Lyon’s unopposed motions to dismiss are GRANTED in Kroshus v. United States, 3:08-cv-246- 21 LDG (#744); and Kroshus v. United States, 3:09-cv-713-LDG (#310). 22 THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the United States’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ 23 responses in Kroshus v. United States, 3:08-cv-0246-LDG (#682), and Kroshus v. United States, 24 3:09-cv-0713-LDG (#293) are DENIED. 25 26 3 1 THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that plaintiffs’ motions to set a trial date in Moore v. 2 United States, 3:09-cv-167-LDG (#193); Adgett v. United States, 3:09-cv-649-LDG (#135); and 3 Ames v. United States, 3:10-cv-463-LDG (#93) are DENIED without prejudice. 4 THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that, as plaintiffs Catherine McDermed and Lyndsay 5 Wilday have failed to oppose the United States’ motion to dismiss and have not filed objections to 6 the magistrate judge’s report recommending granting the motion (#146), and good cause 7 appearing, the United States’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution regarding claims of 8 Catherine McDermed and Lyndsay Wilday in Adgett v. United States, 3:09-cv-649-LDG (#136) is 9 GRANTED. 10 THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that, given the stipulation for dismissal of claims by 11 plaintiff Estate of Bruce Zettel, counsel for plaintiff Bruce Zettel’s motion to withdraw as counsel 12 in Ames v. United States, 3:10-cv-463-LDG (#77) is GRANTED. 13 14 DATED this ______ day of September, 2012. 15 16 ______________________________ Lloyd D. George United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4