Huminski v. Heretia et al

Filing 89

ORDER - Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 75) isdenied. Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Caption (Doc. 76) is granted. The clerk shall correct the caption of this case to reflect the correct spelling of Heredia. Pla intiff's Motion for Clarification or Findings of Law (Doc. 82) is denied. Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Scheduling Order (Doc. 87) is denied.The Court will not dismiss this case on the basis of Defendants stipulation(Doc. 85) or Plaintiffs conditional stipulation (Doc. 88). The clerk isdirected to terminate these stipulations. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/16/11.(LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

No. CV11-0896 PHX DGC

Scott Huminski,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Hector Heretia, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

Plaintiff Scott Huminski has filed a Renewed Motion for Partial Summary

15

Judgment. Doc. 75. The motion attempts to renew a motion previously denied by this

16

Court. Doc. 42. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this Court

17

contain no provision for a “renewed motion.” The Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion

18

as a request for reconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling. Because the motion sets forth

19

no basis for reconsideration, it will be denied.

20
21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiff’s motion to correct the caption of this case (Doc. 76) will be granted. The
Clerk will be directed to correct the caption to reflect the name “Heredia.”
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Clarification or Findings of Law. Doc. 82. The
motion is denied. The Court’s previous orders are sufficiently clear.
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Stay Scheduling Order. Doc. 87. The motion is
denied. The Case Management Order (Doc. 58) remains in effect.

26

Defendants have filed a “stipulation” for dismissal of this case. Doc. 85. The

27

stipulation does not bear Plaintiff’s signature, and the Court does not construe Plaintiff’s

28

other filing (Doc. 83) as consenting to dismissal.

1

The Court has received Plaintiff’s “Conditional Stipulation to Dismissal.”

2

Doc. 88. Plaintiff offers to dismiss this case if the “law of the case” is that the email in

3

question was a suggestion and not an order. The Court’s ruling on this issue was made in

4

the context of Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief. Doc. 68. The Court

5

concluded that Plaintiff was not likely to succeed on the merits. Id. Such a determination

6

does not constitute a final conclusion of law in the case. As a result, the Court construes

7

Plaintiff’s “Conditional Stipulation” as not consenting to dismissal.

8

IT IS ORDERED:

9

1.

denied.

10
11

Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 75) is

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Caption (Doc. 76) is granted. The clerk shall
correct the caption of this case to reflect the correct spelling of Heredia.

12
13

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification or Findings of Law (Doc. 82) is denied.

14

4.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Scheduling Order (Doc. 87) is denied.

15

5.

The Court will not dismiss this case on the basis of Defendants’ stipulation

16

(Doc. 85) or Plaintiff’s conditional stipulation (Doc. 88). The clerk is

17

directed to terminate these stipulations.

18

Dated this 16th day of December, 2011.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
‐ 2 ‐