Waters v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 94 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying as moot 97 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 6/15/2017. (cm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case No. 15-1287-EFM-KGG
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Tyler Waters brings this action against Defendant Union Pacific Railroad
Company. His claims arise under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”) as well as the
Locomotive Inspection Act (“LIA”). One of the theories underlying Waters’ claims relates to
Union Pacific’s alleged violation of 49 C.F.R. § 229.25. Union Pacific has moved for partial
summary judgment, arguing that it never violated 49 C.F.R. § 229.25 (Doc. 94). In his response,
Waters does not oppose Union Pacific’s motion. Instead of fighting Union Pacific’s motion for
partial summary judgment, Waters simply moves for leave to amend his Amended Complaint
and withdraw any of his claims related to the alleged violations of 49 C.F.R. § 229.25 (Doc. 97).
Waters’ motion for leave to amend is unnecessary. Both parties agree that Waters does
not have any claims arising from alleged violations of 49 C.F.R. § 229.25. Therefore, Union
Pacific’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted and this case can move forward
without another amended complaint or further filings related to this matter. Waters’ Motion for
Leave to Amend his First Amended Complaint is denied as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 94) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Tyler Waters’ Motion for Leave to Amend
his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 97) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 15th day of June, 2017.
ERIC F. MELGREN
UNITED STAES 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?