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

Filing 412

ORDER - 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, 3:08-cv-0246-LDG Plaintiff Judy Kroshus renewal a nd reinstatement of motion for summaryjudgment regarding the level of flows through the Truckee Canal (#875) Moore v. United States, 3:09-cv-0167-LDG United States motion for summary judgment regarding discretionary function immunity (# 219) Adgett v. United States, 3:09-cv-0649-LDG United States motion for summary judgment regarding discretionary function immunity (#161) Kroshus v. United States, 3:09-cv-0713-LDG Plaintiffs renewal and reinstatement of motion for summary judgment regarding the level of flows through the Truckee Canal (# 409 ) 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-0463-LDG United States motion for summary judgment regarding discretionary function immunity (#112) Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 9/26/2014. (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
Kroshus v. United States, 3:08-cv-0246-LDG
8
9
10
11

Plaintiff Judy Kroshus’ renewal and reinstatement of motion for summary
judgment regarding the level of flows through the Truckee Canal (#875)
Moore v. United States, 3:09-cv-0167-LDG
United States’ motion for summary judgment regarding discretionary function
immunity (#219)

12
Adgett v. United States, 3:09-cv-0649-LDG
13
14
15
16

United States’ motion for summary judgment regarding discretionary function
immunity (#161)
Kroshus v. United States, 3:09-cv-0713-LDG
Plaintiffs’ renewal and reinstatement of motion for summary judgment regarding
the level of flows through the Truckee Canal (#409)

17
Adamson v. United States, 3:09-cv-0715-LDG
18
19
20
21

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)

22
23

DATED this ______ day of September, 2014.

24
______________________________
Lloyd D. George
United States District Judge

25
26
3