Stejskal v. Lundstrom

Filing 12

ORDER - Any party shall have to on or before January 19, 2011, to show cause why Douglas L. Stejskal v. James A. Laphen, 8:10CV332, should not be consolidated with David G. Ray, et al. v. Gilbert G. Lundstrom, et al., 8:10CV199, and Douglas L. Stejskal v. Gilbert G. Lundstrom, 4:10CV3177, for all purposes. Member Cases: 8:10-cv-00199-JFB -TDT, 4:10-cv-03177-JFB -TDT Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

-TDT Stejskal v. Lundstrom

Doc. 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA DAVID G. RAY, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. TIERONE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. and DOUGLAS L. STEJSKAL, Plaintiff, vs. GILBERT G. LUNDSTROM, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

8:10CV199 ORDER

4:10CV3177 ORDER

This matter is before the court on the court's December 22, 2010, Order finding Douglas L. Stejskal v. James A. Laphen, 8:10CV332, is related to the above-captioned consolidated cases involving the same or similar parties. See Filing No. 12 in case 8:10CV332. Additionally, the consolidated cases appear to be related to and arise from similar law and facts as the later filed case. Such these three cases may be consolidated for all purposes. Despite the court's December 22, 2010, Order, in the above-captioned case, the parties shall have an opportunity to object to consolidation of Douglas L. Stejskal v. James A. Laphen, 8:10CV332, with David G. Ray, et al. v. Gilbert G. Lundstrom, et al., 8:10CV199, and Douglas L. Stejskal v. Gilbert G. Lundstrom, 4:10CV3177. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: Any party shall have to on or before January 19, 2011, to show cause why Douglas L. Stejskal v. James A. Laphen, 8:10CV332, should not be consolidated with David G. Ray, et al. v. Gilbert G. Lundstrom, et al., 8:10CV199, and Douglas L. Stejskal v. Gilbert G. Lundstrom, 4:10CV3177, for all purposes. DATED this 23rd day of December, 2010. BY THE COURT: s/ Thomas D. Thalken United States Magistrate Judge

Dockets.Justia.com