Carson v. Thompson et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 37 Motion for Sanctions; denying 38 Motion for Sanctions. Hosea Thompson's verified responses to prior interrogs due by 9/29/12. The parties must file simultaneous briefs by 10/3/12. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/20/12. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ARTHUR CARSON v. PLAINTIFF No. 4:11-cv-733-DPM ELNORA THOMPSON and HOSEA THOMPSON DEFENDANTS ORDER Motions for sanctions, Document Nos. 37 & 38, denied considering all material circumstances. The Court appreciates Hosea's verified responses to the interrogatories. Document No. 45. Elnora's verified responses to prior interrogatories due by 29 September 2012. The Court misspoke in its recent order, Document No. 41, about the Thompsons' counterclaims. They are affirmative defenses, not counterclaims. The parties must file simultaneous briefs answering these questions on 3 October 2012. 1. Does Carson have standing to assert his four claims? See e.g., Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 588 F.3d 585, 591 (8th Cir. 2009). 2. Does the dismissal with prejudice of what appear to be identical claims in the earlier Texas case, Document No.18 at 14, preclude their re-litigation here even though the Texas case was apparently later dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution? See e.g./ Collins v. City of Corpus Christi, 188 S.W.3d 415, 423 (Tex. App. 2006). 3. If the case remains alive, should it be transferred to a District Court in Texas under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1404? So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. fl United States District Judge

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?