Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Tarlton v. Town of Red Springs, 5:15-CV-451-BO. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20180427f97 Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER TERRENCE W. BOYLE , District Judge . This cause comes before the Court on a motion by plaintiff Tarlton, as guardian ad litem for Henry Lee McCollum, to add Kimberly Pinchbeck, as limited guardian and conservator of the estate of Henry Lee McCollum, as a plaintiff in this action pursuant to Rules 17 and 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 [DE 265]. Also before the Court is Tarlton's motion to amend [DE 266] the Court's order approving settlement with defendants Town of Red
More

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on a motion by plaintiff Tarlton, as guardian ad litem for Henry Lee McCollum, to add Kimberly Pinchbeck, as limited guardian and conservator of the estate of Henry Lee McCollum, as a plaintiff in this action pursuant to Rules 17 and 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 [DE 265]. Also before the Court is Tarlton's motion to amend [DE 266] the Court's order approving settlement with defendants Town of Red Springs, Larry Floyd, and Paul Canady (Town of Red Springs defendants). [DE 253]. The motion to amend the order approving settlement has been renewed by proposed substitute counsel for Tarlton. [DE 279].

For good cause shown, and in the absence of opposition, the foregoing motions [DE 265 & 266] are ALLOWED. Kimberly Pinchbeck, as limited guardian and conservator of the estate of Henry Lee McCollum, is ADDED as a party to this action on behalf of Henry Lee McCollum. The Court's order approving settlement [DE 253] is AMENDED to reflect that the Town of Red Springs defendants shall tender settlement funds for Henry Lee McCollum to Kimberly Pinchbeck as Trustee of the Henry Lee McCollum Irrevocable Trust of`. See [DE 265-2].

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Although its summary judgment order is currently before the court of appeals, the Court has determined that it has retained jurisdiction to consider these matters which are not implicated by or involved in the issues currently on appeal. See Stewart v. Donges, 915 F.2d 572, 575-76 (10th Cir. 1990); McFadyen v. Duke Univ., No. 1:07CV953, 2011WL13134315, at *2 (M.D.N.C. June 9, 2011).
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