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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-5003 - City of Benkelman, Nebraska v. Baseline Engineering Corporation, et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-5003 - City of Benkelman, Nebraska v. Baseline Engineering Corporation, et al
March 21, 2016
PDF | More
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 Corporation 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' 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 these 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)
September 11, 2017
PDF | More
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 satisfy 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)
February 1, 2018
PDF | More
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)
February 15, 2018
PDF | More
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 handled 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 have 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)