BALDWIN v. WITTLE et al
||BRANDON L BALDWIN
||BLUE LINE LP INC, MENARD, INC., BENJAMIN POLLEY and MICHAEL WITTLE
||March 17, 2017
||US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
||Debra McVicker Lynch
|Nature of Suit:
||Civil Rights: Other
|Cause of Action:
||42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|January 25, 2018
ORDER - This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with the Court's orders, [Filing No. 57 ; Filing No. 61 ; Filing No. 63 ], and the Court's Order to Show Cause, [Filing No. 62 ]. For the reasons described below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions and concludes that Plaintiff Brandon Baldwin's Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice. Dismissal is a drastic sanction. But it is approp riate where, as here, the plaintiff fails to abide by the Court's orders and participate in the litigation. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, 57 , 61 , & 63 and DISMISSES Mr. Baldwin's Complaint WITH PRE JUDICE. The Court further RELINQUISHES supplemental jurisdiction over Menards' state-law claims and DISMISSES Menards' Crossclaim and Third-Party Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Final judgment will issue accordingly. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/25/2018. (APD)
|September 6, 2017
ORDER - Pending before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss addressing an indemnification issue that is collateral to Plaintiff Brandon Baldwin's claims. Mr. Baldwin's claims arise from an incident at a Menards store where Defendant Benj amin Polley, a private security officer working for Defendant Blue Line LP Inc. ("Blue Line"), allegedly attempted to stop Mr. Baldwin for stealing. On a motion to dismiss, the Court's sole task is to determine whether a plaintiff 039;s claims have legal viability. At this juncture, the Court finds that Menards has plausibly pleaded that it is entitled to defense and indemnification from Blue Line and Scottsdale. Whether Menards will ultimately be entitled to defense and in demnification under the relevant contracts must be determined at another time. For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court DENIES Blue Line's Motion to Dismiss, [Filing No. 24 ]; Menards' Motion for Leave to File Surreply, [Filing No. 32 ]; Blue Line's Motion to Strike Menards' Surreply, [Filing No. 33 ]; and Scottsdale's Motion to Dismiss, [Filing No. 41 ]. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/6/2017. (APD)
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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?