Breen v. Mineta

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedMarch 21, 2019
DocketCivil Action No. 2005-0654
StatusPublished

This text of Breen v. Mineta (Breen v. Mineta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Breen v. Mineta, (D.D.C. 2019).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ ) KATHLEEN BREEN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 05-0654 (PLF) ) ELAINE L. CHAO, Secretary of ) Transportation, Department of ) Transportation, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this same day, it is hereby

ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion [Dkt. No. 400] to reinstate all individuals

who have expressed their intention to participate as plaintiffs in this case is GRANTED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to Kendra K.

Chapman. Kendra K. Chapman, listed in Exhibit A of Dkt. No. 403, is denied reinstatement in

this case; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to the 211

other individuals listed in Exhibit A of Dkt. No. 403. For the reasons explained in the

accompanying Opinion, those 211 individuals are either reinstated or permitted to join as

plaintiffs in this case; it is FURTHER ORDERED that the prior motions filed by plaintiffs [Dkt. Nos. 383,

385] have been incorporated into plaintiffs’ instant motion [Dkt. No. 400], and therefore, by this

Order, are GRANTED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to the three

individuals who were voluntarily dismissed from this case, listed in Exhibit B of Dkt. No. 400;

and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that any additional prospective plaintiffs – whether they

seek reconsideration of the Court’s prior denial of their joinder or were previously dismissed

from the case – that move to be reinstated in this case following the issuance of this Order and

the accompanying Opinion must show good cause as to why they did not meet the Court’s prior

deadlines.

SO ORDERED.

_______________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge

DATE: March 21, 2019

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Breen v. Mineta, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breen-v-mineta-dcd-2019.