CalMat Co. v. Old Castle Precast, Inc. et al

Filing 167

ORDER by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales striking 153 Rune Kraft's response; striking 159 Rune Kraft's motion to strike; striking 160 Rune Kraft's motion for leave to file a surreply; striking 154 Rune Kraft's motion to dismiss; and striking 165 Rune Kraft's memorandum in support of his motion to dismiss. (tah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CALMAT CO.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civ. No. 16-26 KG/WPL

OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC.,
and JOHN DOES 1-5,
Defendants.
ORDER STRIKING MOTIONS AND BRIEFS
This matter comes before the Court upon


Rune Kraft’s response (Doc. 153) to Defendant Oldcastle Precast, Inc.’s Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 148);



Rune Kraft’s motion to strike (Doc. 159) Defendant Oldcastle Precast, Inc.’s
reply (Doc. 155) to its Motion for Summary Judgment and to strike Defendant
Oldcastle Precast, Inc.’s notice of completion of briefing (Doc. 156) for the
Motion for Summary Judgment;



Rune Kraft’s motion for leave to file a surreply (Doc. 160) to Defendant Oldcastle
Precast, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment;



Rune Kraft’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 154); and



Rune Kraft’s memorandum in support of his Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 165).

The Court notes that in October 2016 it granted, in part, Kraft Rune’s motion to dismiss
(Doc. 16) and dismissed Kraft Rune as a Defendant in this action, because he, as an individual,
did not have a claim to the royalty agreement or royalty payments which are the subject of this
interpleader action and the underlying garnishment lawsuit. (Doc. 56) at 2. In March 2017, the

Court held that Rune Kraft “has no basis for further participation in this case,” since he is no
longer a Defendant and does not purport to be a plaintiff. (Doc. 126) at 3. Then, on May 8,
2017, the Court denied Rune Kraft’s motion to be joined as a Defendant in this lawsuit, a motion
based on Kraft Americas Holdings, Incorporated (KAHI) transfer of its interest in the royalty
payments to Rune Kraft in April 2017. (Doc. 146).
Based on the foregoing, Rune Kraft obviously is no longer a party to this lawsuit and so
may not continue to participate in the litigation of the merits of this lawsuit. See U.S. ex rel.
McCready v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 251 F. Supp. 2d 114, 119 (D.D.C. 2003)
(“general rule that nonparties may not participate in litigation”). Cf. Abeyta v. City of
Albuquerque, 664 F.3d 792, 795 (10th Cir. 2011) (generally “only parties to a lawsuit, or those
that properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment”). Furthermore, even if Rune
Kraft acquired an interest in the royalty payments from KAHI, the Court adjudged that KAHI
“has no interest or claim to the royalty payments at issue in this case” and dismissed KAHI from
the case. (Doc. 132) at 3. For these reasons and in order to manage its docket in an efficient and
expedient manner, the Court will sua sponte strike the aforementioned briefs and motions. Dietz
v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016) (holding “that district courts have the inherent authority
to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient
resolution of cases.”).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the following are stricken:
1. Rune Kraft’s response (Doc. 153);
2. Rune Kraft’s motion to strike (Doc. 159);
3. Rune Kraft’s motion for leave to file a surreply (Doc. 160);
4. Rune Kraft’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 154); and

2

5. Rune Kraft’s memorandum in support of his Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 165).

_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3