Hedglin v. Cottonwood Healthcare, LLC, 8:18-CV-239. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20190213c19
Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2019
Summary: ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD , Chief District Judge . IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice Concerning Defendant Sidney Care & Rehabilitation, L.L.C. (filing 42) is approved. 2. Sidney Care & Rehabilitation is dismissed as a party. 1 3. Pursuant to the plaintiff's Dismissal of Remaining Defendant Cottonwood Healthcare, L.L.C. Without Prejudice Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (filing 43), Cottonwood Healthcare is dismissed as a party. 4. This case is
Summary: ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD , Chief District Judge . IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice Concerning Defendant Sidney Care & Rehabilitation, L.L.C. (filing 42) is approved. 2. Sidney Care & Rehabilitation is dismissed as a party. 1 3. Pursuant to the plaintiff's Dismissal of Remaining Defendant Cottonwood Healthcare, L.L.C. Without Prejudice Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (filing 43), Cottonwood Healthcare is dismissed as a party. 4. This case is ..
More
ORDER
JOHN M. GERRARD, Chief District Judge.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice Concerning Defendant Sidney Care & Rehabilitation, L.L.C. (filing 42) is approved.
2. Sidney Care & Rehabilitation is dismissed as a party.1
3. Pursuant to the plaintiff's Dismissal of Remaining Defendant Cottonwood Healthcare, L.L.C. Without Prejudice Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (filing 43), Cottonwood Healthcare is dismissed as a party.
4. This case is closed.
5. A separate judgment will be entered.
FootNotes
1. The Court is not precluded from dismissing Sidney Care & Rehabilitation by its receivership, because its dismissal from this action does not "interfere with the functioning of the health care facility" within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-2086(3). Cf. Dennis v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 860 F.2d 871, 872 (8th Cir. 1988); cf. also O'Donnell v. Vencor Inc., 466 F.3d 1104, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2006).
Source: Leagle
