IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
February 22, 2013
JULIE LYNN CARPER,
SHARON MAULER, CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, AND LANET ASMUSSEN, CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT, AS AN APPOINTED OFFICIAL, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph F. Bataillon United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Julie Lynn Carper's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Demand Answer (Filing No. 21), Motion for Default Judgment (Filing No. 22), "Motion for Expedited Preliminary Hearing Injunctive Relief" (Filing No. 24), and Motion to Compel Answer (Filing No. 31). In Plaintiff's Motion to Demand Answer, Motion for Default Judgment, and Motion to Compel Answer, Plaintiff asks the court to compel Defendants to file an answer to her Complaint. Also pending are Defendants' Motions to Strike, in which they ask the court to strike Plaintiff's Motions. (Filing Nos. 25 and 27.) Upon careful consideration,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Demand Answer (Filing No. 21), Motion for Default Judgment (Filing No. 22), and Motion to Compel Answer (Filing No. 31) are denied because Defendants have properly filed Motions to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Filing Nos. 12 and 15.) Accordingly Defendants need not file an answer or other responsive pleading unless the court denies Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.
2. Plaintiff's "Motion for Expedited Preliminary Hearing Injunctive Relief" (Filing No. 24) is denied because it is frivolous and nonsensical. Plaintiff is cautioned against filing frivolous motions. Filing frivolous motions could result in further action by this court, including sanctions.
3. Defendants' Motions to Strike (Filing Nos. 25 and 27) are denied.
BY THE COURT:
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.