U.S. v. STABL, INC., 8:11CV274. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20130820b67
Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 19, 2013
Summary: ORDER F.A. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge. On May 21, 2013, the Court granted, in part, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Liability ( filing 98 ). Citing United States v. Tull , 481 U.S. 412 , 426-27 (1987), in which the United States Supreme Court held that Clean Water Act penalty issues are decided by the court, Plaintiffs have moved that this case be removed from the jury docket. ( Filing 107. ) Defendant has filed an Objection to Plaintiffs' request to remov
Summary: ORDER F.A. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge. On May 21, 2013, the Court granted, in part, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Liability ( filing 98 ). Citing United States v. Tull , 481 U.S. 412 , 426-27 (1987), in which the United States Supreme Court held that Clean Water Act penalty issues are decided by the court, Plaintiffs have moved that this case be removed from the jury docket. ( Filing 107. ) Defendant has filed an Objection to Plaintiffs' request to remove..
More
ORDER
F.A. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge.
On May 21, 2013, the Court granted, in part, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Liability (filing 98). Citing United States v. Tull, 481 U.S. 412, 426-27 (1987), in which the United States Supreme Court held that Clean Water Act penalty issues are decided by the court, Plaintiffs have moved that this case be removed from the jury docket. (Filing 107.)
Defendant has filed an Objection to Plaintiffs' request to remove this case from the jury docket (filing 109). In its Objection, Defendant recognizes the Tull decision and provides no authority supporting a right to a jury trial in this case. Instead, Defendant's Objection states that Defendant is seeking to preserve its position on its anticipated appeal of the Court's May 21, 2013 Memorandum and Order (filing 98). Defendant also claims in its Objection that an advisory jury could save a great deal of time if the Court's award of summary judgment is reversed.
In accordance with the Tull decision, Plaintiffs' Motion to Change Trial on Docket to Bench Trial (filing 107) will be granted. The Court declines Defendant's invitation for an advisory jury.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Change Trial on Docket to Bench Trial (filing 107) is granted.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to modify the docket sheet to reflect that trial of this matter will be to the bench, not a jury.
Source: Leagle
