Stejskal v. Laphen

Filing 13

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. (Show Cause Deadline set for 1/19/2011.) Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

-TDT Stejskal v. Laphen

Doc. 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA DOUGLAS L. STEJSKAL, Plaintiff, vs. JAMES A. LAPHEN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

8:10CV332 ORDER

This matter is before the court on the court's December 22, 2010, Order finding the above captioned case is related to two other cases involving the same or similar parties and proceeding in this court. See Filing No. 12. Additionally, the consolidated cases appear to be related to and arise from similar law and facts as the above-captioned case. Accordingly, these three cases could 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