Smith v. City of Omaha et al
Filing
158
ORDER - The plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw (Filing No. 155) is granted effective November 17, 2014; prior to which time the plaintiff may engage new counsel. In the absence of new counsel entering an appearance on or before November 17, 2014, the plaintiff will be deemed proceeding pro se in 8:12CV330 and 8:12CV331 and Timothy L. Ashford will be relieved as counsel. The plaintiff's Motion for Mandatory Mediation (Filing No. 156) is denied. The plaintiff's Motion to Continue (Filing No. 157) is granted to the extent that the November 17, 2014, trial before Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon is continued sine die and will be rescheduled following a conference after November 17, 2014, with the plaintiff's new counse l or the plaintiff pro se and the defendants' counsel. The plaintiff shall have until November 17, 2014, to respond to the defendants' Motion in Limine (Filing No. 148). The defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Filin g No. 84) and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment For Hayes and Swanson (Filing No. 138) are deemed submitted. No additional briefing is permitted. Member Cases: 8:12-cv-00330-JFB-TDT, 8:12-cv-00331-JFB-TDTOrdered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (GJG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
TIFFANY SMITH,
Plaintiff,
8:12CV330
vs.
ORDER
CITY OF OMAHA, a political
subdivision existing and organized
in the State of Nebraska; OMAHA
POLICE DEPARTMENT; ALEX
HAYES, Chief of Police, individually
and in his official capacity;
BENJAMIN EDWARDS, AAREN
ANDERSON, and JERALD
SWANSON, Omaha Police Officers,
individually and in their official
capacities; and JOHN DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
______________________________
TIFFANY SMITH, as parent and
natural guardian of Deante Smith,
Plaintiff,
8:12CV331
vs.
ORDER
CITY OF OMAHA, a political
subdivision existing and organized
in the State of Nebraska; OMAHA
POLICE DEPARTMENT; ALEX
HAYES, Chief of Police, individually
and in his official capacity;
BENJAMIN EDWARDS, AAREN
ANDERSON, and JERALD
SWANSON, Omaha Police Officers,
individually and in their official
capacities; and JOHN DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court following a pretrial conference with counsel on
October 17, 2014. Timothy L. Ashford represented the plaintiff. The plaintiff and her
husband were present for the conference. Thomas O. Mumgaard and Ryan J. Wiesen
represented the defendants.
The court discussed the status of the case and the
plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw (Filing No. 1551), Motion for Mandatory Mediation (Filing
No. 156); and Motion to Continue (Filing No. 157).
The plaintiff also moved for
additional time to respond to the defendants’ Motion in Limine (Filing No. 148). Upon
consideration,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw (Filing No. 155) is granted effective
November 17, 2014; prior to which time the plaintiff may engage new counsel.
In the absence of new counsel entering an appearance on or before
November 17, 2014, the plaintiff will be deemed proceeding pro se in
8:12CV330 and 8:12CV331 and Timothy L. Ashford will be relieved as
counsel.
2. The plaintiff’s Motion for Mandatory Mediation (Filing No. 156) is denied.
3. The plaintiff’s Motion to Continue (Filing No. 157) is granted to the extent that
the November 17, 2014, trial before Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon is
continued sine die and will be rescheduled following a conference after
November 17, 2014, with the plaintiff’s new counsel or the plaintiff pro se and
the defendants’ counsel.
4. The plaintiff shall have until November 17, 2014, to respond to the
defendants’ Motion in Limine (Filing No. 148).
5. The defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Filing No. 84) and
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment For Hayes and Swanson (Filing No.
138) are deemed submitted. No additional briefing is permitted.
Dated this 17th day of October, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge
1
The court will cite to 8:12CV330 unless otherwise noted.
2
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?