Criss et al v. Dakota County Board of Commissioners et al

Filing 229

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The motion to dismiss filed by plaintiffs Gilles, Criss, and Ramirez (Filing No. 206 ) is granted. Plaintiff John Gilles's claims against defendant Wagner in his individual capacity are dismissed, with prejudice. Plainti ff Criss's claims against all defendants are dismissed, with prejudice. Plaintiff Ramirez's claims against all defendants are dismissed, with prejudice. Plaintiff McMahon-Levine's motion to dismiss (Filing No. 215 ) is granted. Plain tiff McMahon-Levine's claims against all defendants are dismissed, with prejudice. This dismissal is without prejudice to any of the remaining claims or the claims of any other plaintiffs to this action. Defendants' motions for summary judgment on the claims of these plaintiffs (Filing Nos. 153 , 158 , 162 , 172 , 175 , and 178 ) are denied as moot. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
RICHARD CRISS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA, NEBRASKA,
JAMES L. WAGNER, in his official and
individual capacities, and RODNEY
HERRON, in his official and individual
capacities,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:09CV387

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(2) by plaintiffs John M. Gilles, Richard Criss, and Krystal Ramirez, Filing No. 206,
and by plaintiff Colleen McMahon-Levine, Filing No. 215. Plaintiff John M. Gilles seeks
dismissal with prejudice of his claim against James L. Wagner in his individual capacity.
Plaintiffs Criss and Ramirez seek dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all
defendants. Plaintiff McMahon-Levine seeks a dismissal with prejudice of her remaining
claims against Rodney Herron and Dakota County.
Defendants have filed a limited partial objection to the plaintiffs’ motions. They
agree to dismissal but object to the plaintiffs’ request that the court order the parties to pay
their own costs and fees. They seek to reserve their right to recover their costs and to
seek attorneys’ fees if they are ultimately successful. The court finds it is not necessary
to address the defendants’ objections. The court retains jurisdiction over and has the
inherent authority to award costs incurred in defending an action prior to its voluntary
dismissal by the plaintiff. Sequa Corp. v. Cooper, 245 F.3d 1036, 1037 (8th Cir. 2001).
Defendants stipulate to the dismissals and have no need to reserve their rights to seek

fees. Accordingly, the court finds the defendants’ objections should be overruled and the
voluntary dismissal motions should be granted. The voluntary dismissals render pending
motions for summary judgment moot.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The motion to dismiss filed by plaintiffs Gilles, Criss, and Ramirez (Filing No.
206) is granted.
2. Plaintiff John Gilles’s claims against defendant Wagner in his individual capacity
are dismissed, with prejudice.
3. Plaintiff Criss’s claims against all defendants are dismissed, with prejudice.
4. Plaintiff Ramirez’s claims against all defendants are dismissed, with prejudice.
5. Plaintiff McMahon-Levine’s motion to dismiss (Filing No. 215) is granted.
6. Plaintiff McMahon-Levine’s claims against all defendants are dismissed, with
prejudice.
7. This dismissal is without prejudice to any of the remaining claims or the claims
of any other plaintiffs to this action.
8. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the claims of these plaintiffs
(Filing Nos. 153, 158, 162, 172, 175, and 178) are denied as moot.
DATED this 14th day of November, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Chief District Judge

*This opinion m ay contain hyperlinks to other docum ents or W eb sites. The U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recom m end, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services
or products they provide on their W eb sites. Likewise, the court has no agreem ents with any of these third
parties or their W eb sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any
hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to som e other site does not affect
the opinion of the court.
2