Greene v. Beaumont et al

Filing 146

ORDER denying 97 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 109 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 124 Motion for sanctions; adopting Report and Recommendations re 129 Report and Recommendations.; adopting in part Report and Recommendations re 133 Report and Recommendations and granting in part and denying in part 142 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 143 Motion for Leave to supplement. Signed by Honorable Robert T. Dawson on April 15, 2010. (rw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION

MICHAEL DON GREENE v. Case No.: 08-2048

PLAINTIFF

KIMBERLY BEAUMONT, KEVIN BEAUMONT, JARAI & SCHEER CORPORATION and THOMAS SCHEER ORDER On this 15th day of April 2010, there

DEFENDANTS

comes

on

for

consideration the report and recommendations filed in this case on February 26, 2010 (doc. 129) and March 5, 2010 (doc. 133), by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate for the Western District of Arkansas. Separate Defendants Thomas Also before the Court are and Jarai & Scheer

Scheer 137),

Corporation's

objections

(doc.

Separate

Defendants

Kimberly and Kevin Beaumont's objections (doc. 139), Plaintiff's Motion and Brief for Reconsideration (doc. 142) and the Scheer Defendants' Motion for Leave to Supplement Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 143). The court has reviewed this case de novo and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds as follows: The report and

recommendation filed February 26, 2010 (doc. 129) is proper and should be and hereby is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly,

the Scheer Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 97) is DENIED. Further, the Scheer Defendants' Motion for Leave to

AO72A (Rev. 8/82)

Supplement (doc. 143) is DENIED without prejudice to their right to renew their motion for summary judgment prior to the

dispositive motion deadline. The report and recommendation filed March 5, 2010 (doc. 133) should be and hereby is adopted in part as further provided herein. The Beaumonts' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 109)

is DENIED as it relates to Separate Defendant Kimberly Beaumont and DENIED AS MOOT as it relates to Separate Defendant Kevin Beaumont due to the bankruptcy stay. motion once the stay is lifted. The Motion for Sanctions (doc. 124) is GRANTED to the extent that the Beaumont's may re-depose Plaintiff provided the Court approves the date and time and is available to rule on any discovery disputes that may arise during the deposition. The Mr. Beaumont may renew his

Court declines to assess the cost of the first deposition against Plaintiff at this time; however, the parties are advised that future sanctions may be imposed against any party not participating in discovery in good faith. Therefore,

Plaintiff's Motion and Brief for Reconsideration (doc. 142) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Robert T. Dawson Honorable Robert T. Dawson United States District Judge

AO72A (Rev. 8/82)