Madden et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
| Shelley L Madden and John L Madden |
| Union Pacific Railroad Company |
| 2:2013cv00358 |
| August 14, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Idaho |
| CDA - Northern Office |
| Boundary - Northern |
| B. Lynn Winmill |
| Real Property: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief |
| Defendant |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand 9 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court will GRANT the motion to remand to the extent plaintiffs seek to pursue this action in state court. This case is remanded to the Di strict Court for the First Judicial District of the State of Idaho. Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees associated with the motion to remand, however, is DENIED. Defendants' Motion to Strike 15 is denied as MOOT. Defendants' Motion to Strike 19 is denied as MOOT to the extent it seeks to strike plaintiffs' response to defendants' first-filed motion to strike. This Motion to Strike is GRANTED to the extent the Court has declined to consider the reply memorand um filed on 10/23/2013. Finally, the Court will DENY Union Pacific's request for attorneys' fees relative to this motion to strike. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Idaho District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
