Voggenthaler, et al., v. Maryland Square, LLC, et al.,

Filing 912

ORDERED that #768 Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Shapiro Brothers Investment Co. Should Not be Held in Contempt for Violating Permanent Injunction is WITHDRAWN. The parties are ordered to re-file the motion before the hearing scheduled on 4/19/12. FURTHER ORDERED that #860 Motion for Clarification and/or Correction of Oversight or Omission Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60(a) is GRANTED. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/14/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13

PETER J. VOGGENTHALER, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
MARYLAND SQUARE, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

2:08-cv-1618-RCJ-GWF
ORDER

14
Currently before the Court are the Kishner Defendants' Motion for Order to Show Cause
15
Why Defendant Shapiro Brothers Investment Co. Should Not Be Held in Contempt for
16
Violating Permanent Injunction (#768) and Ted Wiens's Motion for Clarification and/or
17
Correction of Oversight or Omission Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60(a) (#860). The Court heard oral
18
argument on March 9, 2012.
19
DISCUSSION
20
I.
21

Kishner Defendants’ Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Shapiro
Brothers Investment Co. Should Not Be Held in Contempt for Violating Permanent
Injunction (#768)

22
On December 27, 2010, this Court issued a permanent injunction governing the clean
23
up of hazardous substances at and emanating from Maryland Square Shopping Center.
24
(Permanent Injunction (#592). At the hearing on November 8, 2011, this Court continued
25
argument for this motion until January 20, 2012. (Order (#832) at 1-2). The day before the
26
last scheduled hearing, the parties stipulated to continue the hearing until March 9, 2012.
27
(Stip. (#868) at 4). At oral argument, the parties requested another continuance. Pursuant
28
to the discussions at oral argument, the parties agreed to withdraw the submission of this

1

motion and to re-submit the motion for hearing on April 19, 2012. As such, the Court finds that

2

the Kishner Defendants’ Motion for Order to Show Cause (#768) is withdrawn. The Court

3

orders the parties to re-file the motion before the hearing scheduled on April 19, 2012.

4

II.

Ted Wiens’s Motion for Clarification and/or Correction of Oversight or Omission
Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60(a) (#860)

5
Third-party defendant So. Nev. T.B.A. Supply Co., dba Ted Wiens Tire & Auto Centers
6
(“Ted Wiens”) files a motion for clarification and/or correction of oversight or omission pursuant
7
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). (Mot. for Clarification (#860) at 1). Ted Wiens seeks
8
clarification of this Court’s July 26, 2011 and December 7, 2011 orders whereby the Court
9
acknowledged that Ted Wiens had filed joinders to certain motions or oppositions to motions
10
but did not expressly state that the relief granted applied to Ted Wiens as well. (Id. at 4). Ted
11
Wiens also files a notice of non-opposition. (Non-Opp’n (#880) at 3). Ted Wiens notes that
12
no parties filed an opposition to its motion for clarification and that, pursuant to Local Rule
13
7-2(d), the Court should grant its motion. (Id.).
14
On July 26, 2011, this Court entered an order granting third-party defendant Sears
15
Roebuck & Co.’s motion to dismiss (#470) without leave to amend. (Order (#791) at 2). In
16
that order, the Court acknowledged that Ted Wiens had filed a joinder to the motion to
17
dismiss. (Id. at 1). On December 7, 2011, this Court entered an order denying the Kishner
18
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting Sears’s motion to dismiss.
19
(Order (#832) at 2-4). In that order, the Court acknowledged that Ted Wiens had filed a
20
joinder to Sears’s opposition to the motion for reconsideration. (Id. at 3).
21
The Court grants Ted Wiens’s motion for clarification because the orders and the notice
22
of non-opposition support a finding that both orders dismissed, with prejudice, any pending
23
third-party plaintiff claims against Ted Wiens. As such, the Court grants the motion for
24
clarification (#860).
25
CONCLUSION
26
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Kishner Defendants' Motion for
27
Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Shapiro Brothers Investment Co. Should Not Be Held
28
2

1

in Contempt for Violating Permanent Injunction (#768) is WITHDRAWN. The parties are

2

ordered to re-file the motion before the hearing scheduled on April 19, 2012.

3
4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ted Wiens's Motion for Clarification and/or Correction
of Oversight or Omission Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60(a) (#860) is GRANTED.

5

DATED: This 14th day of March, 2012.

6

DATED: This _____ day of March, 2012.

7
8

_________________________________
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3