Cowley et al v. Cabela's Outdoor Adventures, Inc. et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -In accordance with this Memorandum and Order and the court's December 12, 2012, Memorandum and Order (filing no. 38 ), this matter is dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. The Clerk of Court is direc ted to send a certified copy of this Memorandum and Order to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party and as directed )(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ERIC COWLEY, and GILLIAN
COWLEY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CABELA’S OUTDOOR
ADVENTURES, INC., et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:11CV325

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On November 30, 2012,
Defendants filed a Status Report in accordance with the court’s September 27, 2012,
Memorandum and Order. (Filing No. 35.) In the Status Report, Defendants stated
that on November 27, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington granted a motion to consolidate and transfer two cases identical to this
matter to the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. (Id.) On
December 3, 2012, the Western District of Washington sent this court a Notice of its
order granting Defendants’ motion to consolidate and transfer. (Filing No. 37.) In
the order, the Western District of Washington stated:
[B]efore the Court are two identical cases: the case originally filed in
this District, No. 2:11-cv-01582-RSM, and the case originally filed in
the District of Alaska, No. 2:11-cv-1811-RSM. The third case, which
is also identical, remains in the District of Nebraska but is stayed until
this Court rules on Defendants’ current Motion to Consolidate and
Transfer to Alaska.
...
Plaintiffs voluntarily brought three identical claims that name the same
defendants in three different forums. The Defendants have agreed to

litigate in one of Plaintiffs’ chosen forums, the District of Alaska.
Although the Court makes no ruling on whether it has personal
jurisdiction over Roberts, Alaska clearly has personal jurisdiction over
all parties. Rather than expend court time and resources on determining
whether Western District of Washington is an appropriate forum, the
Court can simply transfer the case to the District of Alaska. The parties
agree to dismiss Pawlak with prejudice and the Court finds dismissal
appropriate. Thus, transfer to the District of Alaska will serve the
interest of justice.
(Filing No. 37 at CM/ECF pp. 3, 8-9.)
In light of this information, and on December 12, 2012, the court entered a
Memorandum and Order directing the parties to inform the court whether they would
like this case transferred to the District of Alaska for further proceedings, or whether
they would like this case dismissed without prejudice. (Filing No. 38.) In doing so,
the court informed the parties that if they failed to respond by December 18, 2012, the
court would dismiss this matter without prejudice and without further notice. (Id. at
CM/ECF p. 2.) The court’s December 18, 2012, deadline has passed and the parties
have not responded to the court’s Memorandum and Order. (See Docket Sheet.)
Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
In accordance with this Memorandum and Order and the court’s
December 12, 2012, Memorandum and Order (filing no. 38), this matter is dismissed
without prejudice and without further notice.
2.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a certified copy of this
Memorandum and Order to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the
District of Alaska.

2

3.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 7th day of January, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District 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.
3