Schudel et al v. Miller et al

Filing 127

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Plaintiff's Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice Plaintiff's Claims For Relief Against Defendants Lasalle Police Officer, David Miller, in His Individual and Official Capacity, Lasalle Police Officer Victor Erazo, in His Individual and Official Capacity (Unopposed) [# 125 ] filed January 23, 2014, is GRANTED. The Stipulated Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice Plaintiff's Claims For Relief Against Defendant Dale Parrish and Defendant Dale Parrish's Countercl aims Against Plaintiff [# 126 ] filed January 23, 2014, is GRANTED. The Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Preparation Conference set May16, 2014, are VACATED. The jury trial set to commence June 2, 2014, is VACATED. Any pending motion and/or recomm endation is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's claims against defendants, Lasalle Police Officer, David Miller, in his individual and official capacity, Lasalle Police Officer Victor Erazo, in his individualand official capacity, are DISMISSED WITH PRE JUDICE, leaving open the issue of an award of fees and/or costs for further motion and determination. Plaintiff's claims against defendant, Dale Parrish are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with the parties to pay their own attorney fees and costs. the counterclaims of defendant, Dale Parrish, against plaintiff are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This case is CLOSED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/24/2014. (klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01864-REB-KLM
JEFFREY SCHUDEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
LASALLE POLICE OFFICER DAVID MILLER, in his individual capacity,
LASALLE POLICE OFFICER VICTOR ERAZO, in his individual capacity, and
DALE PARRISH, ESQ.,
Defendants

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Blackburn, J.
The following motions are before the court for consideration: (1) plaintiff’s Motion
For Dismissal With Prejudice Plaintiff’s Claims For Relief Against Defendants
Lasalle Police Officer, David Miller, in His Individual and Official Capacity, Lasalle
Police Officer Victor Erazo, in His Individual and Official Capacity (Unopposed)
[#125]1; and (2) the Stipulated Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice Plaintiff’s
Claims For Relief Against Defendant Dale Parrish and Defendant Dale Parrish’s
Counterclaims Against Plaintiff [#126] both filed January 23, 2014. After reviewing
the motions and the record, I conclude that both motions should be granted, that
plaintiff’s claims against defendants, Lasalle Police Officer, David Miller, in his individual

1

“[#125]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

and official capacity, Lasalle Police Officer Victor Erazo, in his individual and official
capacity, and Dale Parrish, and the counterclaims of defendant, Dale Parrish, against
plaintiff should be dismissed with prejudice.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That plaintiff’s Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice Plaintiff’s Claims For
Relief Against Defendants Lasalle Police Officer, David Miller, in His Individual
and Official Capacity, Lasalle Police Officer Victor Erazo, in His Individual and
Official Capacity (Unopposed) [#125] filed January 23, 2014, is GRANTED;
2. That the Stipulated Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice Plaintiff’s
Claims For Relief Against Defendant Dale Parrish and Defendant Dale Parrish’s
Counterclaims Against Plaintiff [#126] filed January 23, 2014, is GRANTED;
3. That the Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Preparation Conference set May
16, 2014, are VACATED;
4. That the jury trial set to commence June 2, 2014, is VACATED;
5. That any pending motion and/or recommendation is DENIED as moot;
6. That plaintiff’s claims against defendants, Lasalle Police Officer, David Miller,
in his individual and official capacity, Lasalle Police Officer Victor Erazo, in his individual
and official capacity, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, leaving open the issue of an
award of fees and/or costs for further motion and determination;
7. That plaintiff’s claims against defendant, Dale Parrish are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE with the parties to pay their own attorney fees and costs;

2

8. That the counterclaims of defendant, Dale Parrish, against plaintiff are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
9. That this case is CLOSED.
Dated January 24, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3