UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION
February 19, 2010
CRAIG M. JOHNSON, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
SECURITY MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joe Billy Mcdade United States District Judge
OPINION and ORDER
Before the Court are the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiffs on January 15, 2010 [Doc. 81] and the Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff on February 9, 2010 [Doc. 85]. The Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and the Motion to Dismiss is STRICKEN.
On January 14, 2010, this Court issued an Order resolving the outstanding Motions to Dismiss [Doc. 80]. All of Plaintiffs' federal claims were dismissed (some with and without prejudice) and their state law claims were dismissed without prejudice. The Court noted that the only claims that remained were third-party claims, cross-claims, and counter-claims related to indemnification. Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Reconsider and pointed out that this Court erroneously construed one Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiffs Marcia L. Johnson and Galesburg Electrical/Industrial Supply, Inc. [Doc. 72] as being filed by all Plaintiffs. The Motion to Reconsider was taken under advisement by a Text Order entered on January 20, 2010.
However, on January 19, 2010, an Amended Order on the Motions to Dismiss was entered. In footnote one of the Order, this Court acknowledged the misconstruction of Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and indicated that the Amended Order corrected the mistake. The Amended Order, however, did not change the ultimate rulings: that all of Plaintiffs' federal claims are dismissed. The only difference is that each of the claims were dismissed with prejudice except for Marcia Johnson's and Galesburg Electric/Industrial Supply, Inc. claims against David K. Fensler and United Employee Benefit Fund (where were dismissed without prejudice).
Plaintiffs' current Motion to Dismiss their amended Complaint makes no sense in light of the Court's ruling. Because Plaintiff's federal claims are already dismissed, most with prejudice, and their state claims also have been dismissed, Plaintiff's attempt to "voluntarily" dismiss their claims (without prejudice) would only undermine this Court's ruling. Therefore, the Motion is STRICKEN as impertinent.
Entered this 19th day of February, 2010
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.