Kroshus et al v. United States of America, et al

Filing 373

ORDER - The United States' renewal and reinstatement of # 286 Motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice. FURTHER ORD a hearing shall be conducted on the United States' # 112 Motion for summary judgment on Monday, the 14 th day of January, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. The location of the hearing shall be set by subsequent minute order. FURTHER ORD that defendants City of Fernley's and County of Lyon's unopposed # 310 motion to dismiss are GRANTED. FURTHER ORD that the United States' # 293 Motion to strike Ps' response is DENIED. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 9/28/2012. (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-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, as it has previously ruled, the court shall reinstate

2

the motions previously denied without prejudice in due course. Accordingly, the following are

3

DENIED without prejudice:

4

The United States’ renewal and reinstatement of motion for summary judgment (#461) in
Kroshus v. United States, 3:08-cv-0246-LDG (#673);

5
6

The United States’ renewal and reinstatement of motion for summary judgment (#218) in
Uhouse v. United States Department of the Interior, 3:08-cv-285-LDG (#376);

7

The United States’ renewal and reinstatement of motion for summary judgment (#112) in
Kroshus v. United States, 3:09-cv-0713-LDG (#286);

8
9

The United States’ renewal and reinstatement of motion to dismiss in Adgett v. United
States, 3:09-cv-649-LDG (#137);

10

The United States’ renewal and reinstatement of motion to dismiss in Adamson v. United
States, 3:09-cv-715-LDG (#140); and

11
12

The United States’ renewal and reinstatement of motion to dismiss in Ames v. United
States, 3:10-cv-463-LDG (#94).

13

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that a hearing shall be conducted on the United

14

States’ motion for summary judgment in Kroshus v. United States, 3:08-cv-0246-LDG (#461);

15

motion for summary judgment in Uhouse v. United States Department of the Interior, 3:08-cv-

16

285-LDG (#218); and motion for summary judgment in Kroshus v. United States, 3:09-cv-0713-

17

LDG (#112), on Monday, the 14th day of January, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. The location of the

18

hearing shall be set by subsequent minute order.

19

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that defendants City of Fernley’s and County of

20

Lyon’s unopposed motions to dismiss are GRANTED in Kroshus v. United States, 3:08-cv-246-

21

LDG (#744); and Kroshus v. United States, 3:09-cv-713-LDG (#310).

22

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the United States’ motion to strike plaintiffs’

23

responses in Kroshus v. United States, 3:08-cv-0246-LDG (#682), and Kroshus v. United States,

24

3:09-cv-0713-LDG (#293) are DENIED.

25
26
3

1

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that plaintiffs’ motions to set a trial date in Moore v.

2

United States, 3:09-cv-167-LDG (#193); Adgett v. United States, 3:09-cv-649-LDG (#135); and

3

Ames v. United States, 3:10-cv-463-LDG (#93) are DENIED without prejudice.

4

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that, as plaintiffs Catherine McDermed and Lyndsay

5

Wilday have failed to oppose the United States’ motion to dismiss and have not filed objections to

6

the magistrate judge’s report recommending granting the motion (#146), and good cause

7

appearing, the United States’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution regarding claims of

8

Catherine McDermed and Lyndsay Wilday in Adgett v. United States, 3:09-cv-649-LDG (#136) is

9

GRANTED.

10

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that, given the stipulation for dismissal of claims by

11

plaintiff Estate of Bruce Zettel, counsel for plaintiff Bruce Zettel’s motion to withdraw as counsel

12

in Ames v. United States, 3:10-cv-463-LDG (#77) is GRANTED.

13
14

DATED this ______ day of September, 2012.

15
16
______________________________
Lloyd D. George
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4