USA v. Mosby

Filing 92

ORDER denying 53 Motion to Dismiss Party as moot; denying 59 Motion to Dismiss; denying 60 Motion for Leave to File without prejudice. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 9/9/10. (bkp)

USA v. Mosby et al

Doc. 92

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LORI A. MOSBY, et al. MELVIN LACEY v. LORI A. MOSBY, et al.. ORDER Separate defendant, Pulaski County Treasurer ("Pulaski County"), requests to be dismissed as a party. [Doc. No. 53]. Cross-defendant, Lori A. Mosby ("Mosby"), moves to dismiss the cross-claim filed by Melvin Lacey ("Lacey"). [Doc. No. 59]. Lacey has responded. [Doc. No. 66]. Mosby also moves for leave to file an answer and counter crosscomplaint. [Doc. No. 60]. Pulaski County's motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 53] is denied as moot because Pulaski County was dismissed on January 6, 2010 by stipulation [Doc. No 64]. Mosby's motion to dismiss the cross-claim [Doc. No. 59] is denied because, although she requests dismissal due to a lack of service, it appears that she was properly served. Counsel for Lacey has provided a sworn affidavit stating that he sent copies of the answer and cross-claim to Mosby at the address listed in the return of service and that it was not returned. This is sufficient service of the cross-claim. CROSS DEFENDANTS CASE NO. 4:09cv00353 BSM DEFENDANTS CROSS CLAIMANT PLAINTIFF

Dockets.Justia.com

Mosby's motion for leave to file an answer to Lacey's cross-complaint and a counter cross-complaint [Doc. No. 60] is denied without prejudice. Mosby was appointed counsel on March 9, 2010, after the filing of this motion, and counsel should determine what course of action is necessary to protect Mosby's rights. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of September, 2010.

________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2