Gentlewolf v. Windham Co. Humane Society et al
| Jesse-Lynn V. Gentlewolf |
| Windham County Humane Society, Inc., Suzanne Caviola, Pamela Sorton, DVM, Vermont - New Hampshire Veterinary Clinic, Jerilyn Jacobs, DVM, Craiger J. Boardman, DVM, Judith Ann Jarvis, Christopher Cataldo, Jason O'Brien, Sherwood Lake, Robert Lakin, Sheila Prue, Dan Davis, Esq., Nathaniel Seeley, Esq., Tracy Shriver, Esq,, Mimi Brill, Esq., Katherine Hayes, Paul Berch, Esq., Tracie Tyba, Executive Director of Windham County Humane Society, Nancy Sage, Carrie Roberts and Kim Ward |
| 1:2008cv00261 |
| December 9, 2008 |
| US District Court for the District of Vermont |
| Personal Property: Other Office |
| Windham |
| J. Garvan Murtha |
| Plaintiff |
| Diversity |
| 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage |
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
60
OPINION AND ORDER: denying as moot 55 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 55 Motion for More Definite Statement; granting 56 Motion to Dismiss; granting 57 Motion to Dismiss; granting 58 Motion to Dismiss; granting 59 Motion to Dismiss. Because the plaintiff has failed to abide by the Court's previous 53 order, this case is Dismissed as to all parties and claims with prejudice. Signed by Judge J. Garvan Murtha on 1/14/2010. (wjf)
|
|
Filing
53
OPINION and ORDER: The motions 28 , 33 , 40 to dismiss of defendants Hayes, Davis, Shriver and Ward are GRANTED, and these defendants are DISMISSED. Motions 29 , 41 by Davis, Shriver and Ward for a more definite statement are DENIED as moot. A ll motions to dismiss 23 , 26 , 28 as to dft Brill, 31 , 35 , 38 , 46 and 52 filed by other defendants are denied without prejudice. All remaining motions 24 , 26 , 29 as to dft Brill, 31 , 35 , 38 , 46 and 52 for a more definit e statement are GRANTED. Gentlewolf shall submit an amended complaint on or before December 28, 2009. She is again advised that an amended complaint is intended to completely replace the prior complaint in the action, and thus it renders [any prior c omplaint] of no legal effect. Intl Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 668 (2d Cir. 1977); see also Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., 25 F.3d 1124, 1128 (2d Cir. 1994). Consequently, the amended complaint must include all allegations against eac h defendant such that it can stand alone as the sole complaint in this action. The amended complaint must also comply with Rule 8, thereby giving the defendants clear notice of the claims against which they must defend. Failure to file a properly drafted amended complaint by December 28, 2009 will result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice. Signed by Judge J. Garvan Murtha on 11/23/2009. (kak)
|
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 Vermont 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.
