Sanchez v. Brennan
ORDER denying as moot 53 Intervenor's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/23/2016. Adm Defendants Brief due by 3/18/2016. Adm Plaintiff Reply Brief due by 4/4/2016. (slibi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01523-MJW
ROBERT W. SANCHEZ,
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service,
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s proposed amended pleading (Docket No. 64) is hereby
ACCEPTED FOR FILING and is now the operative complaint in this case;
By operation of the amended complaint (Docket No. 64), and in light of
Plaintiff’s unequivocal representations that he does not seek to challenge
the Pittman Class Action settlement (see Docket Nos. 58, 60, & 62), Count
Two is hereby deemed VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED by Plaintiff under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2);
Judgment SHALL ENTER under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) against Plaintiff
Robert W. Sanchez and in favor of Intervenor Pittman Class (through
Class Counsel John Mosby), as to any claim that can be construed as
raising a challenge to the Pittman Class Action. Each party shall pay its
own costs and fees; and
Intervenor’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 53) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
In light of the foregoing, it is not apparent whether the Court has subjectmatter jurisdiction over claims subsumed into an administrative classaction proceeding. (See Docket No. 24, p.13 n.7.) Accordingly, the Court
sua sponte orders the parties to brief the matter of the Court’s jurisdiction.
Defendant’s opening brief SHALL BE filed on or before March 18, 2016.
Plaintiff’s response brief SHALL BE filed on or before April 4, 2016. No
reply will be permitted absent leave of court.
February 23, 2016
/s/ Michael J. Watanabe
Michael J. Watanabe
United States Magistrate 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?