Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Breen v. Chao, 05-0654 (PLF). (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Columbia Number: infdco20190322b32 Visitors: 19
Filed: Mar. 21, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2019
Summary: ORDER PAUL L. FRIEDMAN , District Judge . For the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this same day, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion [Dkt. No. 400] to reinstate all individuals who have expressed their intention to participate as plaintiffs in this case is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; it is FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion is DENIED as to Kendra K. Chapman. Kendra K. Chapman, listed in Exhibit A of Dkt. No. 403, is denied reinstatement in this case;
More

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this same day, it is hereby

ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion [Dkt. No. 400] to reinstate all individuals who have expressed their intention to participate as plaintiffs in this case is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion is DENIED as to Kendra K. Chapman. Kendra K. Chapman, listed in Exhibit A of Dkt. No. 403, is denied reinstatement in this case; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED as to the 211 other individuals listed in Exhibit A of Dkt. No. 403. For the reasons explained in the accompanying Opinion, those 211 individuals are either reinstated or permitted to join as plaintiffs in this case; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the prior motions filed by plaintiffs [Dkt. Nos. 383, 385] have been incorporated into plaintiffs' instant motion [Dkt. No. 400], and therefore, by this Order, are GRANTED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion is DENIED as to the three individuals who were voluntarily dismissed from this case, listed in Exhibit B of Dkt. No. 400; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that any additional prospective plaintiffs — whether they seek reconsideration of the Court's prior denial of their joinder or were previously dismissed from the case — that move to be reinstated in this case following the issuance of this Order and the accompanying Opinion must show good cause as to why they did not meet the Court's prior deadlines.

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