Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. EX REL. NISSMAN v. SOUTHLAND GAMING OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, INC., 2011-0010 (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Virgin Islands Number: infdco20160404d29 Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 31, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2016
Summary: ORDER WILMA A. LEWIS , Chief District Judge . UPON CONSIDERATION of Defendant Southland Gaming of the Virgin Islands, Inc.'s "Motion to Dismiss and Strike" (Dkt. No. 28); Defendants Southland Amusement and Vending, Inc. and Robert Huckabee, III's "Motion to Dismiss and Strike" (Dkt. No. 30); Defendants' "Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Declaration" (Dkt. No. 40); Defendants' "Joint Motion for Hearing" (Dkt. No. 43); the parties' respective Oppositions and Replies (Dkt. Nos. 37, 42, 44, 45),
More

ORDER

UPON CONSIDERATION of Defendant Southland Gaming of the Virgin Islands, Inc.'s "Motion to Dismiss and Strike" (Dkt. No. 28); Defendants Southland Amusement and Vending, Inc. and Robert Huckabee, III's "Motion to Dismiss and Strike" (Dkt. No. 30); Defendants' "Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Declaration" (Dkt. No. 40); Defendants' "Joint Motion for Hearing" (Dkt. No. 43); the parties' respective Oppositions and Replies (Dkt. Nos. 37, 42, 44, 45), and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, filed contemporaneously herewith, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendant Southland Gaming of the Virgin Islands, Inc.'s "Motion to Dismiss and Strike" (Dkt. No. 28) is GRANTED as it relates to subject matter jurisdiction (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)) and DENIED as it relates to striking the Complaint (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)); and it is further

ORDERED that Defendants Southland Amusement and Vending, Inc. and Robert Huckabee, III's "Motion to Dismiss and Strike" (Dkt. No. 30) is GRANTED as it relates to subject matter jurisdiction (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)) and DENIED as it relates to striking the Complaint (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)); and it is further

ORDERED that Defendants' "Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Declaration" (Dkt. No. 40) is DENIED, including for MOOTNESS; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendants' "Joint Motion for Hearing" (Dkt. No. 43) is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer