Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al
| Union Pacific Railroad Company |
| United States Department of Homeland Security and Michael Chertoff |
| 8:2008cv00336 |
| July 31, 2008 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| Other Statutory Actions Office |
| Douglas |
| Joseph F. Bataillon |
| Thomas D. Thalken |
| None |
| U.S. Government Defendant |
| 19:1305 Custom Duties:0Forfeiture-Immoral Articles |
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
192
ORDER granting Defendant's 182 ) Motion to Alter or Amend in case 8:08-cv-00336-JFB-TDT; granting (75) Motion to Amend in case 8:10-cv-00430-JFB-TDT; granting (75) Motion to Amend in case 8:10-cv-00444-JFB-TDT. The Memorandum and Order (F iling No. 180 ) and the Permanent Injunction (Filing No. 181 ) are hereby vacated and withdrawn. An Amended Memorandum and Order and Amended Permanent Injunction will issue this date. The Clerk of Court is directed to file those orders with restricted access pursuant to the protective order (Filing No. 116 ). Member Cases: 8:08-cv-00336-JFB-TDT, 8:10-cv-00430-JFB-TDT, 8:10-cv-00444-JFB-TDTOrdered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (MKR)
|
|
Filing
180
MEMORANDUM ORDER granting (56) UP's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting (120) Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record; denying as moot (124) UP's Motion to Stay in case 8:08-cv-00336-JFB-TDT. Member Cases: 8:08-cv-00336-JFB-TDT, 8:10-cv-00430-JFB-TDT, 8:10-cv-00444-JFB-TDTOrdered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (SMS, )
|
|
Filing
178
ORDER regarding (177) Stipulation for Dismissal in case 8:08-cv-00336-JFB -TDT and (70) Stipulation for Dismissal in case 8:10-cv-00430-JFB -TDT. Union Pacific's Administrative Procedure Act, Declaratory Judgment Act, and Constitutional Claims concerning the seizure of the railcars identified in the pleadings are dismissed with prejudice. This dismissal applies only to the railcars identified in the pleadings. Counterclaim II asserted by the Government is dismissed with prejudice, with t he understanding that by so dismissing, the Government does not concede that the District of Nebraska possesses jurisdiction over the seizures of the railcars at issue.In addition, the Government reserves the right to enforce future applications of the Tariff Act of 1930 against Union Pacific on identical grounds in the event of future seizures. Member Cases: 8:08-cv-00336-JFB -TDT, 8:10-cv-00430-JFB -TDTOrdered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (JAE)
|
|
Filing
168
ORDER granting the defendants' (157) Motion for Leave to Serve Separate Definitions with Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories in case 8:08-cv-00336-JFB -TDT; (51) in case 8:10-cv-00430-JFB -TDT and (48) in case 8:10-cv-00444-JFB -TDT. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (MKR)
|
|
Filing
154
ORDER - United States of America v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 8:10CV444, is hereby consolidated for all purposes with Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., 8:08CV336 and United States of Americ a v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 8:10CV430. Counsel shall conduct discovery as if these consolidated cases are part of a single case. All future filings shall contain the consolidated case caption, which appears on this order, and shall be served on counsel in all cases as described below. The Order for Initial Progression of Case filed on July 26, 2010, is theoperable progression order governing this consolidated matter. See Filing No. 98 in case 8:08CV336.Member Cases: 8:08-cv-00336-JFB -TDT, 8:10-cv-00430-JFB -TDT, 8:10-cv-00444-JFB -TDTOrdered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (GJG)
|
|
Filing
150
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE- Any party shall have to shall have to on or before December 10, 2010, to show cause why United States of America v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 8:10cv444 should not be consolidated with Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al, 8:08cv336 and United States of America v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 8:10cv430 for all purposes. Show Cause Deadline set for 12/10/2010.Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (MKR)
|
|
Filing
148
ORDER - Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., 8:08CV336, and United States of America v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 8:10CV430 are hereby consolidated for all purposes. Counsel shall conduct disc overy as if these consolidated cases are part ofa single case. All future filings shall contain the consolidated case caption, which appearson this order, and shall be served on counsel in both cases as described below. Case No. 8:08CV336 is hereby designated as the "Lead Case." Case No. 8:10CV430 is hereby designated as the "Member Case." The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the do cuments filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except those described in paragraph 5) in the Lead Case, No. 8:08CV336, and to select the option &q uot;yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. The Order for Initial Progression of Case filed on July 26, 2010, is the operable progression order governing this consolidated matter. See Filing No. 98 in case 8:08CV336. Member Cases: 8:08-cv-00336-JFB -TDT, 8:10-cv-00430-JFB -TDTOrdered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (MKR, )
|
|
Filing
123
ORDER granting 122 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Extend Brief Deadline. Union Pacific is granted until October 18, 2010, to submit a reply brief in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment 56 . Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (MKR)
|
|
Filing
116
PROTECTIVE ORDER granting 110 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for a Protective Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)
|
|
Filing
107
ORDER granting 106 Defendant's Motion to Extend. Defendants are granted an extension of 14-days, to and including September 24, 2010, within which to file their Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff shall file its reply to defendants response within 14 days after the response is served. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (MKR)
|
|
Filing
101
ORDER denying 92 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (JAE)
|
|
Filing
72
ORDER granting 71 the defendant's consent Motion to Extend time. It is further ordered that defendants shall file their reply in support of their Motion to dismiss on or before April 26, 2010. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (MKR)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER granting 68 Motion to Extend time. The Defendants shall file their reply in support of their motion to suspend briefing upon plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on or before April 28, 2010. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (MKR)
|
|
Filing
67
ORDER granting 66 Motion for Leave to Submit Amended Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff is granted two days to submit an Amended Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (JSF)
|
|
Filing
55
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS - The Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (Filing No. 54 ) is granted. The Plaintiff shall reply to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) and (6) (Filing No. 34 ) on or before June 3, 2010. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL, )
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS - IT IS ORDERED: The Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (Filing No. 49 ) is granted. The Plaintiff shall reply to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) and (6) (Filing No. 34 ) on or before December 4, 2009. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL )
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS - The Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (Filing No. 47 ) is granted. The Plaintiff shall reply to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP12(b)(1) and (6) (Filing No. 34 ) on or before September 4, 2009. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL )
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS - The Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (Filing No. 45 ) is granted. The Plaintiff shall reply to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) and (6) (Filing No. 34 ) on or before June 26, 2009. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL)
|
|
Filing
44
ORDER - The defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery and Rule 26 Requirements (Filing No. 37 ) is denied as moot. The defendants' amended Motion to Stay Discovery and Rule 26 Requirements (Filing No. 40 ) is granted. The parties shall have tw enty (20) days from the date an order is filed on the currently pending motion to dismiss (Filing No. 34 ), in which to file a planning report with the court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), if necessary. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TCL)
|
|
Filing
43
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(1) and (6)- The Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (Filing No. 42 ) is granted. The Plaintiff shall reply to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) and (6) (Filing No. 34 ) on or before April 27, 2009. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER - The case stay is lifted. The defendants shall have until March 20, 2009, to file a response to the plaintiff's complaint. The parties shall have until March 31, 2009, to file a planning report as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TCL)
|
|
Filing
25
ORDER -The defendants' Consent Motion to Stay Proceedings (Filing No. 23 ) is granted. The case shall be stayed until further order of this court. Counsel shall file a joint status report concerning the status of this case on November 19, 2008, and every 30 days thereafter, such report to include counsel's position(s) concerning whether the stay should continue in effect or whether the stay should be lifted. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TCL)
|
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.
