UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RITZ

Filing 146

ENTRY ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT: For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Ronald Ritz's Motion to Reconsider 144 is DENIED. The Government's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment 139 is also DENIED ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 7/14/2011. (DWH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THOMAS J. RITZ, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 1:07-cv-1167-WTL-DML

ENTRY ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Before the Court is a Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Docket No. 139) filed by the
Government and a Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 144) filed by Defendant Ronald
Ritz. Both motions are fully briefed, and the Court, being duly advised, now rules as follows.
I. MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Defendant Ronald Ritz1 seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Entry on Remedy (Docket
No. 138). Ronald argues that the imposed penalty is unduly harsh given the facts of this case.
Having read Ronald’s brief, and the Government’s response thereto, the Court now DENIES
Ronald’s motion. Ronald has not raised any argument that the Court did not consider in
reaching its original decision, nor has he demonstrated to the Court that the original ruling was in
error.
II. MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
The Government filed a Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Docket No. 139) against

1

As the parties are aware, Ronald Ritz’s brother Thomas Ritz is a co-defendant in this
lawsuit. For convenience, and to avoid any confusion, the Court will refer to Ronald Ritz as
“Ronald” in this Entry.

Ronald. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides:
When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . or when multiple
parties are involved, the court may direct entry of final judgment as to one or
more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines
that there is no just reason for delay.
Pursuant to the Court’s prior rulings, it appears that the only issues remaining in this
lawsuit are whether Defendant Thomas Ritz is an owner or operator of a Public Water System,
and, if so, what remedy is appropriate. The Court will be setting these issues for trial in the next
sixty days by separate entry. The Government has not demonstrated any need for separate
judgment to be entered now against Ronald given that the entire case will be resolved within the
next few months, thus permitting a single judgment and the opportunity for a single appeal.
Accordingly, the Government’s motion is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Ronald Ritz’s Motion to Reconsider (Docket No.
144) is DENIED. The Government’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Docket No. 139) is
also DENIED.
SO ORDERED: 07/14/2011
_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Copies to all counsel of record via electronic notification.

2