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

Filing 239

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales striking 203 Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; and striking 227 Request that the Court Moves Sua Sponte (Subject to Motion for Summary Judgment). (tah)

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

Civ. No. 16-26 KG/JHR

OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon Rune Kraft’s “Notice of Motion and Motion for
Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56” (Motion for Summary Judgment), filed
December 13, 2017. (Doc. 203). Defendant Oldcastle Precast, Inc. (Oldcastle) filed a response
on December 28, 2017. (Doc. 216). On January 4, 2018, Rune Kraft (Kraft) filed a reply and
“Request that the Court Moves Sua Sponte (Subject to Motion for Summary Judgment)”
(Request). (Docs. 226 and 227). Having reviewed the Motion for Summary Judgment, the
accompanying briefing, and the Request, the Court denies both the Motion for Summary
Judgment and the Request.
As the Court previously ruled, “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.” (Doc. 167) at 2
(citing 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”); 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”). Given that Kraft is not a party
to this lawsuit, he cannot file dispositive motions like the Motion for Summary Judgment and his

Request, which both seek a determination that Oldcastle has no claim to the royalty proceeds at
issue in this interpleader lawsuit. Therefore, the Court will strike the Motion for Summary
Judgment and the Request.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Kraft’s “Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56” (Doc. 203) is stricken; and
2. Kraft’s “Request that the Court Moves Sua Sponte (Subject to Motion for Summary
Judgment)” (Doc. 227) is stricken.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2