Uhouse et al vs Bureau of Reclamation, et al

Filing 473

ORDERED that the following motions are DENIED without prejudice subject to their reinstatement by the court in the due course of the aforementioned proceedings: Kroshus v. United States (Kroshus I), 3:08-cv-0246-LDG Plaintiff's motio n for summary judgment on the issue of the Bureau of Reclamations level of flows through the Truckee Canal (#857); Adamson v. United States, 3:08-cv-00621-LDG United States' motion for summary judgment regarding discretionary functio n immunity (#230); Moore v. United States, 3:09-cv-0167-LDG United States' motion for summary judgment regrading discretionary function immunity (#219); Adgett v. United States, 3:09-cv-0649-LDG United States' motion for summary judgment regrading discretionary function Immunity (#161); Kroshus v. United States (Kroshus II), 3:09-cv-0713-LDG TRC Engineers, Inc.'s, defendants' motion for summary judgment against the 58 Individuals in Kroshus II w ho are not members of the Reimers class action (#368); Adamson v. United States, 3:09-cv-0715-LDG United States' motion for summary judgment regarding discretionary function immunity (#170); Ames v. United States, 3:10-cv-046 3-LDG United States' motion for summary judgment regarding discretionary function immunity (#112); FURTHER ORDERED that, as approval of class settlement and distribution of settlement funds has been granted, the following related mo tions for approval of settlement of class action pursuant to FRCP 23(e) and distribution of settlement funds are hereby DENIED in the following cases as moot:; Kroshus v. United States (Kroshus I), 3:08-cv-0246-LDG (#848); Uhouse v. Bureau of Reclamation, 3:08-cv-0285-LDG (# 458 ); and Kroshus v. United States (Kroshus II), 3:09-cv-0713-LDG (#384). Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 9/27/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

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
(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

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

16

Defendants.

17

BILL ADAMSON, et al.,

3:08-cv-0621-LDG
(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
3
4

3:09-cv-0167-LDG

Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

5

Defendants.

6
7

JAMES ADGETT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

3:09-cv-0649-LDG

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

11

JUDY KROSHUS, et al.,

3:09-cv-0713-LDG
(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
(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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

25

Defendant.

26
2

1

In conformity with the subdivision of pending motions for oral arguments and rulings

2

announced by the court in its order of March 16, 2011, and in the further interests of case

3

management of this litigation,

4

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that the following motions are DENIED without

5

prejudice subject to their reinstatement by the court in the due course of the aforementioned

6

proceedings:

7
8

Kroshus v. United States (Kroshus I), 3:08-cv-0246-LDG
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of the Bureau of
Reclamation’s level of flows through the Truckee Canal (#857)

9
Adamson v. United States, 3:08-cv-00621-LDG
10
11
12
13

United States’ motion for summary judgment regarding discretionary function
immunity (#230)
Moore v. United States, 3:09-cv-0167-LDG
United States’ motion for summary judgment regrading discretionary function
immunity (#219)

14
Adgett v. United States, 3:09-cv-0649-LDG
15
16
17
18

United States’ motion for summary judgment regrading discretionary function
immunity (#161)
Kroshus v. United States (Kroshus II), 3:09-cv-0713-LDG
TRC Engineers, Inc.’s, defendants’ motion for summary judgment against the 58
individuals in Kroshus II who are not members of the Reimers class action (#368)

19
Adamson v. United States, 3:09-cv-0715-LDG
20
21
22
23

United States’ motion for summary judgment regarding discretionary function
immunity (#170)
Ames v. United States, 3:10-cv-0463-LDG
United States’ motion for summary judgment regarding discretionary function
immunity (#112)

24
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that, as approval of class settlement and distribution
25
of settlement funds has been granted, the following related motions for approval of settlement of
26
3

1

class action pursuant to FRCP 23(e) and distribution of settlement funds are hereby DENIED in

2

the following cases as moot: Kroshus v. United States (Kroshus I), 3:08-cv-0246-LDG (#848);

3

Uhouse v. Bureau of Reclamation, 3:08-cv-0285-LDG (#458); and Kroshus v. United States

4

(Kroshus II), 3:09-cv-0713-LDG (#384).

5
DATED this ______ day of September, 2013.
6
7
______________________________
Lloyd D. George
United States District Judge

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