Kroshus et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 667

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS: that in Kroshus v. United States (Kroshus I), 3:08-cv-00246-LDG-RAM, defendant Lynon Countys 564 is DENIED as moot; that in Kroshus v. United States (Kroshus II), 3:09-cv-00713-LDG-RAM, defendant Lyo n Countys #195 motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot; that in Adgett v. United States, 3:09-cv-00649-LDG-RAM, the United States #69 motion to renew and reinstate that motion is DENIED as moot; that in Adgett v. United States, 3:09-cv-00649-LDG-RAM the United States #71 motion to renew and reinstate that motion is DENIED as moot; that in Kroshus v. United States (Kroshus II), 3:09-cv-00713-LDG-RAM, the United States #45 motion to dismiss duplicati ve claims by certain plaintiffs is hereby GRANTED;that in Adamson v. United States (Adamson II) 3:09-cv-00715-LDG-RAM, the United States #72 and #73 motions to renew those motions are DENIED as moot; that in Adamson v. United States (Adamson II) 3:09-cv-00715-LDG-RAM, the United States #75 motion to renew that motion is DENIED as moot.

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

JUDY KROSHUS, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10

3:08-cv-0246-LDG-RAM
(Kroshus I)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12

ALICIA UHOUSE, et al.,

13

Plaintiffs,

14

v.

15

3:08-cv-0285-LDG-RAM

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17

BILL ADAMSON, et al.,

3:08-cv-0621-LDG-RAM
(Adamson I)

18
Plaintiffs,
19
v.
20
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
21
Defendant.
22
23
24
25
26
1

1

LARRY J. MOORE, et al.,

2

Plaintiffs,

3

v.

4

3:09-cv-0167-LDG-RAM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

5

Defendants.

6
7

JAMES ADGETT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

3:09-cv-0649-LDG-RAM

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

11

JUDY KROSHUS, et al.,

3:09-cv-0713-LDG-RAM
(Kroshus II)

12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16

BILL ADAMSON, et al.,

17
18
19

3:09-cv-0715-LDG-RAM
(Adamson II)

Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

20

Defendant.

21

JASON AMES, et al.,

22

Plaintiffs,

23

v.

24

3:10-cv-0463-LDG-RAM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

25

Defendant.

26
2

1

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that, given the order approving good faith settlement

2

(#658) in Kroshus v. United States (Kroshus I), 3:08-cv-0246-LDG-RAM, defendant Lyon

3

County’s motion for summary judgment (#564) in that case is DENIED as moot.

4

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that, given the order approving good faith settlement

5

(#270) in Kroshus v. United States (Kroshus II), 3:09-cv-0713-LDG-RAM, defendant Lyon

6

County’s motion for summary judgment (#195) in that case is DENIED as moot.

7

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that, given this court’s order signed August 12, 2011,

8

granting in part and denying in part the United States’ motion to dismiss (#20) in Adgett v. United

9

States, 3:09-cv-0649-LDG-RAM, the United States’ motion to renew and reinstate that motion

10

(#69) is DENIED as moot.

11

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that, given the court’s ruling from the bench on June

12

13, 2011, granting the United States’ motion to strike jury demand and to strike claims for

13

prejudgment interest (#19) in Adgett v. United States, 3:09-cv-0649-LDG-RAM, the United

14

States’ motion to renew and reinstate that motion (#71) is DENIED as moot.

15

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that, based on the similar reasoning used by the court

16

in its order signed on August 12, 2011, the United States’ motion to dismiss duplicative claims by

17

certain plaintiffs (#45) in Kroshus v. United States (Kroshus II), 3:09-cv-713-LDG-RAM, is

18

hereby GRANTED.

19

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that, given the court’s order signed August 12, 2011,

20

granting the United States’ motion to dismiss duplicative claims (#21) and granting in part and

21

denying in part the United States’ motion to dismiss (#23) in Adamson v. United States (Adamson

22

II 3:09-cv-0715-LDG-RAM, the United States’ motions (#72 and #73) to renew those motions are

23

DENIED as moot.

24
25

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that, given the court’s ruling from the bench on June
13, 2011, granting the United States’ motion to strike jury demand and claims for prejudgment

26
3

1

interest and attorney’s fees (#20) in Adamson v. United States (Adamson II), 3:09-cv-0715-LDG-

2

RAM, the United States’ motion to renew that motion (#75) is DENIED as moot.

3
4

DATED this ______ day of September, 2011.

5
6

______________________________
Lloyd D. George
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4