Atem v. County of Lancaster et al

Filing 329

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that if defendant Ruiz wishes to bring additional case law to the court's attention relevant to her pending motion for summary judgment (Filing 236 ), she may do so via letter brief, filed on or before August 8, 2016. The motion for summary judgment (Filing 236 ) filed by defendant Ruiz shall be considered ripe for resolution on August 9, 2016, and shall be handled in the normal course of business. Defendant's objection (Filing 328 ) to Plaintiff's counsel's second letter to the court and the attached case law (Filing 327 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
AROK ATEM,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LPN STACY RUIZ, in her individual )
and official capacity;
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

4:13CV3017

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

By memorandum and order (Filing 325) filed July 11, 2016, the court ordered
that Plaintiff advise the court by letter whether he wishes to proceed against defendant
Stacy Ruiz, LPN—the only remaining defendant in this case. Further, the order stated
that if Plaintiff plans to proceed against defendant Stacy Ruiz, LPN, Ruiz shall inform
the court by letter whether she still wishes to assert her pending motion for summary
judgment (Filing 236) in light of the dismissal of all other defendants.
Counsel for both parties have submitted letters pursuant to the memorandum
and order, stating that settlement negotiations between Plaintiff and Ruiz have failed.
(Filing 326; Filing 328.) Plaintiff’s counsel also filed a second letter (Filing 327)
advising the court of a recent similar case from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, Burke v. Glanz, No. 11-CV-720 (N.D. Okla.), a copy
of which counsel has attached to the letter. Defendant Ruiz’s counsel states that she
still wishes to assert her pending motion for summary judgment, and that she objects
to Plaintiff’s counsel’s second letter to the court with attached case law because it
“appears to be a quasi-supplemental reply brief.” Ruiz’s counsel requests that the
letter be stricken. (Filing 328.)

The fact that Plaintiff’s counsel has alerted the court to a recent publicly
available similar case, Burke v. Glanz, No. 11-CV-720, 2016 WL 3951364 (N.D.
Okla. July 20, 2016), prejudices no one, especially since Ruiz’s motion for summary
judgment has been pending for several months while the parties have been engaged
in settlement negotiations and proceedings, and new case law may have developed
since briefing. If Ruiz wishes to present additional case law to the court, she may
certainly do so.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
If defendant Ruiz wishes to bring additional case law to the court’s
attention relevant to her pending motion for summary judgment (Filing 236), she may
do so via letter brief, filed on or before August 8, 2016;
2.
The motion for summary judgment (Filing 236) filed by defendant Ruiz
shall be considered ripe for resolution on August 9, 2016, and shall be handled in the
normal course of business;
3.
Defendant’s objection (Filing 328) to Plaintiff’s counsel’s second letter
to the court and the attached case law (Filing 327) is denied.
DATED this 28th day of July, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2