Seger et al v. Ernest-Spencer Metals

Filing 125

ORDER - Defendant RTEs motion to withdraw (Filing No. 122 ) is granted in full. Defendant RTEs motion to dismiss a party (Filing No. 70 ) is denied as moot. Defendant RTE is ordered to file an answer to the plaintiffs amended complaint (Filing No. 49 ) on or before April 16, 2009. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (MKR)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA G A R E Y E. SEGER and TWILA SEGER, Husband and Wife, P l a in t i f f s , v. E R N E S T -SP E N C E R METALS, INC., T A N K CONNECTION, LLC, R O U N D T A B L E ENGINEERING S O L U T IO N S , LLC, KIRK WELDING S U P P LY, INC., and BURNS & M C D O N N E L L ENGINEERING C O MP A N Y, INC., D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8 :0 8 C V 7 5 ORDER T his matter is before the court on defendant Roundtable Engineering Solutions, L.L.C.'s ("R T E ") motion to withdraw (Filing No. 122). In its motion to withdraw, RTE requests that the court dismiss its previously filed motion to dismiss a party (Filing No. 70). In support of this m otion, RTE represents to the court that RTE and the plaintiffs have reached an agreement wherein RTE agrees to waive its jurisdictional and venue defenses and file an answer to the plaintiff 's amended complaint (Filing No. 49). The court has reviewed the pending motions and the record and finds there is no reason this motion should not be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant RTE's motion to withdraw (Filing No. 122) is granted in full. 2. Defendant RTE's motion to dismiss a party (Filing No. 70) is denied as moot. 3. Defendant RTE is ordered to file an answer to the plaintiffs' amended complaint (Filing No. 49) on or before April 16, 2009. DA TE D this 25th day of March, 2009. B Y THE COURT: s/ Joseph F. Bataillon Chief 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?