May v. United States, The et al

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25 . Plaintiffs Special Motion to Remand Bill in Equity back to state under a Special Term for Special Proceeding 21 and 2nd Order to Remand Bill of Equity back to state under a Special Term for Special P roceeding 28 are DENIED. Defendant United States Motion to Dismiss 3 is GRANTED and Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs Petition to Strike 11 , Petition for Permanent Protection Order for Sealing Record of case 12 , S pecial Motion to Amend Bill in Equity under a Special Term for Special Proceeding 20 , and Special Motion to Order & Hold a Special Term for Special Proceeding 22 are DENIED as moot. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on November 13, 2012. (CBC)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Nicole M. May, Beneficiary, Co-Beneficiaries, Tami M. May, Dennis M. May, Next Friend for Nicole M. May Is Tami M. May Plaintiffs, v. Civil No. 12-cv-1659 (JNE/AJB) ORDER The United States, “The Trustee,” Lynn M. Thieman, “Co-Trustee,” and Lawful Revenue Agent Defendants. In a Report and Recommendation dated October 15, 2012, the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended granting a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant United States and denying multiple motions filed by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs objected, the United States responded, and Plaintiffs responded. Plaintiffs also filed a document titled “‘2nd Order’ to Remand ‘Bill of Equity’ back to state under a ‘Special Term’ for ‘Special Proceeding’” [Docket No. 28] and the United States filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Remand. In his Report and Recommendation, Chief Judge Boylan recommended denying a similar motion titled “‘Special Motion’ to ‘Remand ‘Bill in Equity’ back to state under a ‘Special Term’ for Special Proceeding.” The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. See D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). Based on that review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 25]. For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Remand filed by the United States, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ “‘2nd Order’ to Remand ‘Bill of Equity’ back to state under a ‘Special Term’ for ‘Special Proceeding.’” Therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1 1. Plaintiffs’ “‘Special Motion’ to ‘Remand ‘Bill in Equity’ back to state under a ‘Special Term’ for Special Proceeding” [Docket No. 21] and “‘2nd Order’ to Remand ‘Bill of Equity’ back to state under a ‘Special Term’ for ‘Special Proceeding’” [Docket No. 28] are DENIED. 2. Defendant United States’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 3] is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. Plaintiffs’ “Petition to Strike” [Docket No. 11], “Petition for Permanent Protection Order for Sealing Record of case” [Docket No. 12], “‘Special Motion’ to Amend ‘Bill in Equity’ under a ‘Special Term’ for ‘Special Proceeding’” [Docket No. 20], and “‘Special Motion’ to ‘Order & Hold’ a ‘Special Term’ for ‘Special Proceeding’” [Docket No. 22] are DENIED as moot. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: November 13, 2012 s/Joan N. Ericksen JOAN N. ERICKSEN United States District Judge 2

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?