Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

RING v. HUMPHREYS COUNTY, 3:12-0016. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee Number: infdco20140512982 Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2014
Summary: ORDER JOHN S. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge. This action is before the undersigned for all further District Court proceedings, pursuant to the consent of all parties. (Docket Entry No. 49) As an initial matter, there is pending a joint motion by plaintiff Darrin T. Ring, defendant/third-party plaintiff Joseph Parnell, individually, and defendant Kinta Bell, individually, to dismiss with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), all claims brought by Ring against Parnell and Bell, including all
More

ORDER

JOHN S. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.

This action is before the undersigned for all further District Court proceedings, pursuant to the consent of all parties. (Docket Entry No. 49)

As an initial matter, there is pending a joint motion by plaintiff Darrin T. Ring, defendant/third-party plaintiff Joseph Parnell, individually, and defendant Kinta Bell, individually, to dismiss with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), all claims brought by Ring against Parnell and Bell, including all claims for attorneys' fees and costs, as well as Parnell's counterclaim against Ring. (Docket Entry No. 102) This motion is hereby GRANTED.

With regard to the third-party action, there are pending two motions to dismiss the third-party complaint by third-party defendant Tennessee Risk Management Trust ("TRMT") (Docket Entry Nos. 94 & 106), as well as earlier filed cross-motions for summary judgment by TRMT (Docket Entry No. 67) and third-party plaintiff Joseph Parnell (Docket Entry No. 72). Also pending in this third-party action are a joint motion to stay any ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment pending further discovery related to the motions (Docket Entry No. 86), and a motion by TRMT to stay ruling on the summary judgment motions pending the Court's ruling on its later-filed motions to dismiss. (Docket Entry No. 108)

As explained in the Memorandum accompanying this Order, the motions to stay the Court's ruling on these parties' motions for summary judgment (Docket Entry Nos. 86 & 108) are hereby GRANTED nunc pro tunc; TRMT's motions to dismiss (Docket Entry Nos. 94 & 106) are hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the motions for summary judgment (Docket Entry Nos. 67 & 72) are hereby DENIED without prejudice to being re-filed in state court.

The Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over this third-party action, and it is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to being re-filed in state court.

This Order constitutes the final judgment in this action.

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