United States of America v. Murphy Development, LLC et al
| United States of America |
| Murphy Development, LLC, Meadow Creek, LP, Miller Town, LP, Swiss Ridge, LP, 17th Street, LP, Alta Vista, LP, Forest View, LP and Stonebridge, LP |
| 3:2008cv00960 |
| September 29, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Civil Rights: Accommodations Office |
| Davidson |
| Robert Echols |
| E. Clifton Knowles |
| None |
| U.S. Government Plaintiff |
| 42:3601 Fair Housing Act |
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
183
CONSENT ORDER. Each party to this litigation will bear its own costs and attorney's fees associated with this litigation. SO ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2010. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 3/30/10. (af) Modified on 3/30/2010 (af).
|
|
Filing
150
ORDER: (1) the Motion To Dismiss Or In The Alternative To Stay Pending Arbitration (Docket Entry No. 87), filed by Third-Party Defendant Construction Enterprises, Inc., is hereby GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART, as explain ed in this Order; (2) the Motion of Defendant John Coleman Hayes Construction to Dismiss And Alternatively, To Stay Proceedings Against It And To Refer Third Party Claims To Mediation and Arbitration (Docket Entry No. 91), is hereby GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART, as explained in this Order; further, the Motion is granted on the federal and derivative state-law indemnity and/or contribution claims on the basis of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and not on Fe deral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (3) the Third-Party Defendant Summit Contractors, Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 96), is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as explained in this O rder; further, the Motion is granted on the federal and derivative state-law indemnity and/or contribution claims on the basis of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and not on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (4) the Third-Party Defendant Michael Brady, Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 99), is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as explained in this Order; (5) the Third-Party Defendant Bernard Weinstein & Associates' ; Motion To Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 101), is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as explained in this Order; (6) the Third-Party Defendant Charles Pilgrim Associates' Motion To Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 103) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as explained in this Order; (7) the Third-Party Defendant Ragan Smith Associates, Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 105) hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as explained in this Order; (8) the Motion Of Defendant J ohn Coleman Hayes Construction Co., Inc. To Dismiss And Alternatively, To Stay Proceedings Against It And To Refer Third Party Claims Of Azalea Development, LLC to arbitration (Docket Entry No. 107) is hereby GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and DENI ED AS MOOT IN PART, as explained in this Order; further, the Motion is granted on the federal and derivative state-law indemnity and/or contribution claims on the basis of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and not on Federal Rule of Civil Proc edure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (9) the Motion Of Third-Party Defendant William K. Barry To Dismiss The Third Party Complaint of Azalea Development, LLC (Docket Entry No. 141) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PA RT, as explained in this Order; further, the Motion is granted on the federal and derivative state-law indemnity and/or contribution claims on the basis of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and not on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) f or lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (10) the First Amended Third Party Complaint (Docket Entry No. 79) and the Third Party Complaint of Azalea Development, LLC (Docket Entry No. 90) are hereby DISMISSED; the federal express and implied indemnity and/or contribution claims brought under the FHA and/or the ADA and the derivative state-law indemnity and/or contribution claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and any breach of contract or negligence claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (11) the Joint Motion of Summit Contractors, John Coleman Hayes Construction, Construction Enterprises, Inc., Ragan Smith Associates, Inc., Bernard Weinstein & Associates, Charles Pilgrim Associates, and Michae l Brady, Inc. to Inquire As To The Status Of Pending Motions To Dismiss And To Request The Granting Of The Motions To Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 130) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT; (12) John Coleman Hayes Construction Co., Inc.'s Motion For Leave To F ile Reply Memorandum To Response Of Third Party Plaintiffs To Motion To Inquire As To The Status Of Pending Motions To Dismiss And To Request The Granting Of The Motions To Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 135) is hereby GRANTED, and the Clerk is hereby dir ected to file the Reply Memorandum appearing at Docket Entry No. 135-1 under a separate docket entry number; (13) Azalea Development, LLCs Motion To Extend The Time To Respond To The Motion To Dismiss Filed By William K. Barry (Docket Entry No. 146) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT; (14) what remains for the Court to consider are the FHA and ADA claims brought by the United States against the Defendants; (15) Defendants' Motion For Settlement Conference (Docket Entry No. 110) is hereby GRANTED; and (16) the case is referred to Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown only for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference between Plaintiff, the United States of America, and the Defendants named in the First Amended Complaint. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 10/27/09. (af)
|
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 Tennessee Middle 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.
