Crandall et al v. Sarpy, County of et al

Filing 73

ORDER 1) Plaintiffs motion to voluntarily dismiss defendants Danny K. Stoeber andLynne L. Heiden, 58 , is granted. Defendants Stoeber and Heidenare dismissed without prejudice.2) Defendant Stoebers motion to terminate notice of CM/ECF filings, 68 , is granted.3) The motion to continue filed by defendants James Bain, Phillip Barkley, DavidL. Hartman, R. Gregg Mitchell, Bradford Moore, Nebraska Real PropertyAppraiser Board, Katherine Policky, and Matthew Wilson, 70 , isgranted, and these defend ants shall file their response to the plaintiffscomplaint within ten days after the courts ruling on plaintiffs motion toremand in Crandall et al v. Sarpy County Nebraska, 8:10cv122.4) The motion to withdraw as counsel for defendants Daniel E. Hoins and theCity of Papillion filed by Joseph S. Risko, Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart (PCV, ) Modified on 5/10/2010 to correct judge (PCV, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA D A V E A. CRANDALL, DOLLY ) B E U L A H MILDRED CRANDALL, and ) G A R Y DAVID CRANDALL, ) ) P l a i n t if f s , ) ) v. ) ) C O U N T Y OF SARPY, et. al., ) ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . )

8 :1 0 C V 9 7

M E M O R A N D U M AND ORDER

P e n d in g before me are the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss defendants Danny K . Stoeber and Lynne L. Heiden, (filing no. 58); and defendant Stoeber's corresponding m o tio n to terminate notice of CM/ECF filings. Filing No. 68. No defendant had moved for su m m a ry judgment or filed an answer before the plaintiffs filed their motion to voluntarily d i sm is s defendants Stoeber and Heiden. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' action against these d e f en d a n ts is dismissed as of right, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)), these defendants should no lo n g e r receive CM/ECF notification of filings in this case.

A parallel action, (Crandall et al v. Sarpy County Nebraska, 8:10cv122), was removed to this forum on April 2, 2010. The plaintiffs moved for remand on April 5, 2010, and their m o t io n remains pending. Defendants James Bain, Phillip Barkley, David L. Hartman, R. G re g g Mitchell, Bradford Moore, Nebraska Real Property Appraiser Board, Katherine P o lick y, and Matthew Wilson, have moved for an extension of their deadline to respond to th e plaintiffs' complaint because the ruling on remand may affect the allegations and d e f e n s e s raised. Filing No. 70. Finally, Joseph S. Risko has moved to withdraw as counsel f o r defendants Daniel E. Hoins and the City of Papillion, (filing no. 71), because new counsel h a s entered an appearance on these defendants' behalf.

A c c o r d i n g l y,

IT IS ORDERED: 1) P la in tif f s' motion to voluntarily dismiss defendants Danny K. Stoeber and L yn n e L. Heiden, (filing no. 58), is granted. Defendants Stoeber and Heiden a re dismissed without prejudice. D e f en d a n t Stoeber's motion to terminate notice of CM/ECF filings, (filing no. 6 8 ), is granted. T h e motion to continue filed by defendants James Bain, Phillip Barkley, David L . Hartman, R. Gregg Mitchell, Bradford Moore, Nebraska Real Property A p p ra is e r Board, Katherine Policky, and Matthew Wilson, (filing no. 70), is g r a n te d , and these defendants shall file their response to the plaintiffs' c o m p lain t within ten days after the court's ruling on plaintiffs' motion to re m a n d in Crandall et al v. Sarpy County Nebraska, 8:10cv122. T h e motion to withdraw as counsel for defendants Daniel E. Hoins and the C ity of Papillion filed by Joseph S. Risko, (filing no. 71), is granted.

2)

3)

4)

D A T E D this 7 th day of May, 2010. B Y THE COURT: s/ Cheryl R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web 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 some other site does not affect the opinion of the court. -2-