Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

17-823 - BALDWIN v. WITTLE et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
17-823 - BALDWIN v. WITTLE et al
September 6, 2017
PDF | More
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 Benjamin 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'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 indemnification 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)
January 25, 2018
PDF | More
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 appropriate 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 PREJUDICE. 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. ยง 1367(c)(3). Final judgment will issue accordingly. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/25/2018. (APD)