Stringfellow v. Southfork Bay Development Group LLC

Filing 51

ORDER re 50 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Rickey Stringfellow, Southfork Bay Development Group LLC, Carl Samuels, Kathleen Samuels, the parties have up to and including five days from the entry of this Order to file a notice regarding the status of claims against separate defts Horton and John Cunningham Enterprises. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 10/13/11. (vjt)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION * * * * * * * * * * RICKEY STRINGFELLOW, Plaintiff VS. SOUTHFORK BAY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC Defendant NO: 4:08CV00575 SWW ORDER Plaintiff Rickey Stringfellow (“Stringfellow”) brings this action pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against Carl and Kathleen Samuels, Southfork Bay Development Group, LLC (“Southfork”), and John Cunningham Enterprises. The complaint also names Horton Construction and Development, Inc. (“Horton”) as a defendant; however, Horton has not entered an appearance, and it appears that Horton has never been served a copy of the complaint and summons. Before the Court is a joint stipulation of dismissal by Stringfellow and separate defendants Southfork, Carl Samuels, and Kathleen Samuels, requesting an order "dismissing Defendants Southfork . . . and Carl and Kathleen Samuels." Docket entry #50. The stipulation contains no information regarding claims against separate defendants John Cunningham Enterprises and Horton. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff and separate defendants Southfork and Carl and Kathleen Samuels have up to and including five (5) days from the entry date of this order in which to file notice regarding the status of claims against separate defendants Horton and John Cunningham Enterprises.1 IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011. /s/Susan Webber Wright UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 Based on the parties' joint stipulation, it appears that Stringfellow's claim against John Cunningham Enterprises remains active but that separate defendants' cross claim against John Cunningham Enterprises is now moot. It also appears that Horton should be dismissed as a party pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?