James v. 3M Company et al
ORDER dismissing without prejudice the John & Jane Does 1-500 and John Doe Corporate 1-500 defendants and cross defendants; denying as moot the 22 motion for summary judgment; and denying as moot the 25 unopposed motion for extension of time. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 09/30/2016. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
Case No. 5:15-cv-00159-KGB
3M COMPANY et al.
On August 29, 2016, the Court entered an Order, pursuant to the stipulation filed by the
parties, dismissing plaintiff Andrew James’s claims against defendant 3M Company in this case
(Dkt. Nos. 30, 31). At that time, the parties had not stipulated to the dismissal of the John &
Jane Does 1-500 and John Doe Corporate 1-500 named as defendants in Mr. James’s complaint
and as cross defendants in 3M Company’s answer (Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 31). As a result, the Court
directed the parties to show the Court within 30 days why the Doe defendants should not be
dismissed without prejudice (Dkt. No. 31). The Court notified the parties that, if they failed to
do so, the Court would dismiss without prejudice the Doe defendants (Dkt. No. 31).
Thirty days have passed since the Court’s Order, and no party has responded or otherwise
objected to the dismissal of these defendants. Therefore, the Court dismisses without prejudice
the John & Jane Does 1-500 and John Doe Corporate 1-500 named as defendants in Mr. James’s
complaint and as cross defendants in 3M Company’s answer. The Court denies as moot the
motion for summary judgment filed by 3M Company and the unopposed motion for extension of
time to file response to 3M Company’s motion for summary judgment filed by Mr. James (Dkt.
Nos. 22, 25).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2016.
Kristine G. Baker
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?