Aquapower et al v. Yurth et al

Filing 91

ORDER DISMISSING REMAINING CLAIMS. CASE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will still address the pending motions for attorneys fees when they are fully briefed. Case Closed. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 3/29/2011. (ce)

Download PDF
Aquapower et al v. Yurth et al Doc. 91 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION AQUAPOWER, LC, a Utah Limited Liability Company; and AQUAENERGY, LC, a utah Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING REMAINING CLAIMS vs. DAVID G. YURTH; NOVA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, LLC, a Utah limited liability company; JEFFERY J. FRANDSEN; SCOTT R. SCHREYER; MICHAEL S. KRALIK; CRIT RANDALL KILLEN; EDWARD G. PRICE; ENVIRONMENTAL POTENTIALS, INC., a Nevada corporation; LEONHARDT SCHROEDTER; ROGER L. CAREFOOT; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants. Case No. 2:10-CV-568 TS On February 28, 2011, the Court issued an Order which dismissed Aquapower's federal claims without prejudice.1 The Court gave Aquapower though March 17, 2011, to file an amended complaint. Aquapower has not done so. The Court's February 28 Order further stated 1 Docket No. 85. 1 that if Aquapower did not file an amended complaint, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3). Consequently, it is hereby ORDERED that all remaining claims in this matter are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. The Court will still address the pending motions for attorneys fees when they are fully briefed. DATED March 29, 2011. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?