Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

GAEDEKE HOLDINGS VII LTD. v. MILLS, CIV-11-649-M. (2013)

Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma Number: infdco20130903c90 Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 29, 2013
Summary: ORDER VICKI MILES-LaGRANGE, Chief District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Motions in Limine, filed July 29, 2013. Defendants Landon Speed, Jim Ashford, Baker Petroleum and Investment, Inc., and Todd Baker's ("the Baker Group") response was filed on August 19, 2013. Defendant Windsor Energy Group, LLC's ("Windsor") response was also filed on August 19, 2013. Defendant Mayhem Oil & Gas Inc. ("Mayhem") filed its response on August 21, 2013. Plaintiffs' reply
More

ORDER

VICKI MILES-LaGRANGE, Chief District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Motions in Limine, filed July 29, 2013. Defendants Landon Speed, Jim Ashford, Baker Petroleum and Investment, Inc., and Todd Baker's ("the Baker Group") response was filed on August 19, 2013. Defendant Windsor Energy Group, LLC's ("Windsor") response was also filed on August 19, 2013. Defendant Mayhem Oil & Gas Inc. ("Mayhem") filed its response on August 21, 2013. Plaintiffs' reply was filed on August 26, 2013. This case is currently set on the Court's September, 2013 trial docket.

Plaintiffs seek an order striking the motions in limine filed by the Baker Group, Windsor and Mayhem. Plaintiffs contend the Court should strike the individual motions in limine of these defendants because they each improperly seek summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law in the guise of a motion in limine.

The Court has carefully reviewed the motions in limine filed by the Baker Group, Windsor and Mayhem, as well as plaintiffs' response to each motion. Plaintiffs contend in their response to the motions in limine filed by the Baker Group, Windsor and Mayhem that said motions in limine should be denied or stricken because the motions seek summary judgment. Because plaintiffs have made the same argument in response to each individual motion in limine as made in support of their Motion to Strike, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike should be denied. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Motions in Limine [docket no. 356] is therefore DENIED. Plaintiffs' arguments will be addressed in the Court's ruling on the motions in limine filed by the Baker Group, Windsor and Mayhem.

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