CHILDRESS v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Case No. 1:17-cv-00261-RJ-WPL.

SID CHILDRESS, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and NATIONWIDE SALES SOLUTIONS INC., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Sid Childress, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Rufus E. Thompson , Modrall Sperling, Jennifer A. Noya , Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA & Sonya R. Martin , DENTON US, LLP, pro hac vice.

Nationwide Sales Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rufus E. Thompson , Modrall Sperling, Jennifer A. Noya , Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA & Sonya R. Martin , DENTON US, LLP, pro hac vice.


STIPULATED ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

WILLIAM P. LYNCH, Magistrate Judge.

As shown by the respective approvals of counsel for the parties appearing below, the parties have agreed and stipulated to this Order resolving all pending motions on the terms set forth in this Order.

Plaintiff filed a First Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 23, on 6/5/17. Defendants filed their Opposition to that motion, Doc. 37, on 7/18/17. In their Opposition, Defendants withdrew their "Seventh and Eighth Defenses" that were a subject of Plaintiff's motion, reserving the right to assert such defenses in other litigation matters or in this case if the posture of this case materially changes. On those conditions Plaintiff has agreed his First Motion for Summary Judgment may be denied at this time. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Plaintiff filed a First Motion to Compel Discovery, Doc. 24, on 6/5/17. Defendants filed their Opposition to that motion, Doc. 38, on 7/18/17. Plaintiff has agreed that his First Motion to Compel Discovery may be denied as moot at this time, but that such denial of the motion is without waiver of any of the discovery the subject of that motion and is without prejudice to Plaintiff should the need to revisit any issue the subject of that motion arise in the future in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Defendants filed their Motion to Quash Subpoena to Non-Party Datalot Inc., Doc 34, on 7/5/17. Plaintiff has agreed to withdraw the subpoena to Datalot the subject of the motion, and that he will not seek at this time the discovery the subject of the motion that is objectionable to Defendants. Therefore the Court should deny as moot the Motion to Quash Subpoena to Non-Party Datalot Inc. IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases