City of Benkelman, Nebraska v. Baseline Engineering Corporation et al
| City of Benkelman, Nebraska |
| Baseline Engineering Corporation and Layne Christensen Company |
| 7:2015cv05003 |
| August 21, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| 7 North Platte Office |
| Richard G. Kopf |
| Cheryl R. Zwart |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1132 E.R.I.S.A. |
| 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
96
ORDER - that the unopposed motion to withdraw filed by Ryan C. Carson, as counsel of record for Plaintiff, (Filing No. 95 ), is granted. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (LKO)
|
|
Filing
83
JUDGMENT granting 81 Joint Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice between Plaintiff City of Benkelman, Nebraska, and Defendant Baseline Engineering Corporation. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), all claims asserted by Plaintiff City of Benkelman, Nebraska, against Defendant Baseline Engineering Corporation in the above-captioned action are dismissed with prejudice. Defendant Baseline Engineering Corporation is dismissed as a party to this action, and the Clerk of Court shall indicate on the court's electronic docket sheet that such Defendant is terminated as a party to this case. Each party shall be responsible for its own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce t he terms of the parties' settlement agreement. The City of Benkelman's claims against Layne Christensen Company and Christensen's counterclaims against the City remain pending. Therefore, this Judgment does not terminate the case. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (KMG)
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER - All matters surrounding the question regarding the trial to determinewhether the City of Benkelman and Baseline Engineering Corporation are subject to binding arbitration, including discovery, progression and pretrial conferences, will be han dled by the undersigned and not Judge Zwart. As indicated in my previous order, the parties are encouraged to stipulateto as much as they can to avoid the necessity of pretrial proceedings regarding the (ironic) trial to determine whether we should h ave a trial. No further action is required by Defendant Layne Christensen Company. To be precise, the action between the City of Benkelman and Layne Christensen Company, along with Christensen's counter claims against the City, remain pending but are stayed. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (LKO)
|
|
Filing
60
ORDER that the Motion is GRANTED. Mr. Walsh and Mr. Poyner are hereby removed as counsel of record for Baseline and will no longer receive notifications in this matter. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (LAC)
|
|
Filing
50
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Baseline's "Motion for Dismissal Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(B)" (filing no. 12 ) is denied without prejudice. This is done purely to make a clear record in the manner more particularly described below and to sa tisfy the command of the Court of Appeals. Baseline shall have through and until Friday, October 6, 2017, to file such a motion, and evidence index if required, that is responsive to the opinion of the Court of Appeals. The City of Benkelman shall have through and until Monday, November 6, 2017, to submit a responsive brief, and evidence index if required. Baseline shall have through and until Monday, November 13, 2017, to submit a reply brief, and evidence index if necessary. If limited discovery is required to resolve Baseline's motion, the parties shall make every reasonable effort to arrive at a stipulation as to such discovery, which stipulation shall be filed. The undersigned will then issue an order as appropriate regarding that limited discovery and related rescheduling. If a party believes limited discovery is required but no stipulation is reached due a disagreement, counsel shall contact the undersigned's judicial assistant (Kris Leininger) at 402- 437-1640 to schedule a telephone conference with the undersigned and counsel for all parties. The Magistrate Judge shall not progress this case until and unless directed to do so by the undersigned. The Clerk shall provide the Magistrate Judge with a copy of this Memorandum and Order. The Clerk shall correct the docket and show the City of Benkelman as an active party on the docket sheet. The Clerk shall set a case management deadline as follows: November 13, 2017check for status of motion regarding remand issues. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copies mailed as directed to Judge Zwart)(LAC)
|
|
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The "Motion for Dismissal Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(B)" (Filing 12 ) filed by defendant Baseline Engineering Corporation is granted, and plaintiff City of Benkelman's claims against Baseline Engineering Corpora tion are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff City of Benkelman's claims against defendant Baseline Engineering Corporation shall proceed to arbitration in Colorado consistent with the terms stated in the parties� 39; July 2009 Contract (Filing 14-2 at CM/ECF p. 3). Plaintiff City of Benkelman's lawsuit against defendant Layne Christensen Company, along with Christensen's counterclaim against the City, shall remain pending in this court because th ese parties dispute involves an entirely different contract. The Clerk of Court shall terminate defendant Baseline Engineering Corporation as a party in this case, and a Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) judgment shall be entered as to such party by separate document. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (GJG)
|
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 Nebraska 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.
