INDIANA TRANSPORTATION MUSEUM, INC. v. HOOSIER HERITAGE PORT AUTHORITY
| INDIANA TRANSPORTATION MUSEUM, INC. |
| CITY OF FISHERS, INDIANA, CITY OF NOBLESVILLE, INDIANA and HOOSIER HERITAGE PORT AUTHORITY |
| 1:2017cv02373 |
| July 13, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Matthew P. Brookman |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
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
54
ORDER - Plaintiff Indiana Transportation Museum, Inc. ("ITM") owns several trains which it has operated on a rail line owned by Defendant Hoosier Heritage Port Authority ("HHPA") that runs through the cities of Fishers and Nobl esville, Indiana. In 2016, ITM was prohibited from operating its trains on HHPA tracks, and this lawsuit followed. Presently pending is a Motion to Dismiss filed by HHPA, [Filing No. 35 ], which is now ripe for the Court's decision. For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court DENIES IN PART HHPA's Motion to Dismiss, [Filing No. 35 ], to the extent that it exercises federal question jurisdiction over this matter; GRANTS IN PART HHPA's Motion to Dismiss, [Filing No. 35 ], to the extent that it finds that ITM has not stated a federal claim upon which relief can be granted and DISMISSES those claims against HHPA WITH PREJUDICE; DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE ITM's federal claims against Defendants City of Fishers and City of Noblesville; and Declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over, and DISMISSES WITH-OUT PREJUDICE, any state law claims ITM asserts against Defendants. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/20/2017. (APD)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER denying 3 Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Finally, the Court notes that ITM refers to its Petition for Temporary Restraining Order in its brief as its "Verified Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order and Prel iminary Injunction Hearing." [Filing No. 4 at 1.] To the extent that ITM requests a preliminary injunction hearing in its Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order, the Court DENIES that request because ITM has not filed a Motion for Prelimin ary Injunction. The Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order does not request a preliminary injunction. And while the Complaint discusses and requests a preliminary injunction, ITM cannot move for a preliminary injunction within its Complaint, and must file a separate motion and supporting brief. Should ITM do so, the Court will request that the Magistrate Judge confer with the parties - if and when that time comes - to set an appropriate briefing schedule. In sum, the Court DENIES ITM's Petition for Temporary Restraining Order, [Filing No. 3 ], because ITM has not complied with Rule 65(b)'s requirements for ex parte issuance of a temporary restraining order, and because ITM has not made an adequate showing under applicable law that a temporary restraining order is warranted. (SEE ORDER FOR MORE DETAILS.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/13/2017. (MRI)
|
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
- 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.
