Montize et al v. Pittman Properties et al
ORDER granting and denying in parts 148 Motion to Dismiss Parties. Signed by Honorable Harry F. Barnes on July 6, 2010. (cnn)
Muniz et al v. Pittman Properties et al
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION
ARCELIA MUNIZ, EVENCIO GARCIA and AGUSTIN GARCIA GONZALEZ
Case No. 07-CV-1073
PITTMAN PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP #1; D&M PITTMAN, INCORPORATED; DAWOOD AYDANI; MICKEY H. PITTMAN and PITTMAN NURSERY CORPORATION
ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Separate Defendants from Certain Causes of Action. (Doc. 148). Plaintiffs ask the Court to dismiss certain causes of action against Separate Defendants.1 Upon consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Separate Defendants from Certain Causes of Action should be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Any claims against Separate Defendants that are based upon alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.2 It appears from Plaintiffs' motion that Plaintiffs' intent is to also dismiss certain other causes of action against Separate Defendants. However, the Court is unclear as to which causes of action In this Order, "Separate Defendants" refers to Pittman Properties Limited Partnership #1, D&M Pittman, Inc., and Mickey H. Pittman Ketchum. These claims are found in paragraph VII of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 132).
Plaintiffs are referring. Thus, Plaintiffs' request to dismiss any other causes of action against Separate Defendants is DENIED. If Plaintiffs wish to dismiss any other causes of actions against Separate Defendants, Plaintiffs are directed to file a motion that makes clear to the Court which causes of action they wish to dismiss. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 6th day of July, 2010. /s/ Harry F. Barnes Hon. Harry F. Barnes 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?