Helms v. Macy's Retail Holding, Inc.

S.D. Georgia

Helms v. Macy's Retail Holding, Inc.

DecidedMay 10, 2019

Docket4:18-cv-00103

StatusUnknown

This text of Helms v. Macy's Retail Holding, Inc. (Helms v. Macy's Retail Holding, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Helms v. Macy's Retail Holding, Inc., (S.D. Ga. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

MICHAEL BYRNE HELMS, ) J.T. HELMS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CV418-103 ) MACY’S RETAIL HOLDING, INC., ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER The parties filed their notice of settlement on February 22, 2019, indicating that they would file a stipulated dismissal within 60 days, “depending on the ability to resolve an issue regarding a claimed Medicare lien.” Doc. 22. There has been no further activity in this case. It is therefore unclear whether the parties have resolved their dispute, or intend to proceed with the case. Within 14 days of the date this Order is served, the parties shall either (1) file their stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, or (2) otherwise apprise the Court of the status of their settlement. Failure to respond will result in a recommendation of dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (authorizing district courts to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order); L.R. 41.1(c) (authorizing district court to dismiss for lack of prosecution); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (courts have the inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Collins v. Lake Helen, L.P., 249 F. App’x 116, 120 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[Dlistrict court|s] possesses the inherent power to police [their] docket[s]” and to prune out those cases left to languish by their litigants). SO ORDERED, this _10th_ day of May, 2019. Any Lor (lay. CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

MICHAEL BYRNE HELMS, ) J.T. HELMS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CV418-103 ) MACY’S RETAIL HOLDING, INC., ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER The parties filed their notice of settlement on February 22, 2019, indicating that they would file a stipulated dismissal within 60 days, “depending on the ability to resolve an issue regarding a claimed Medicare lien.” Doc. 22. There has been no further activity in this case. It is therefore unclear whether the parties have resolved their dispute, or intend to proceed with the case. Within 14 days of the date this Order is served, the parties shall either (1) file their stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, or (2) otherwise apprise the Court of the status of their settlement. Failure to respond will result in a recommendation of dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (authorizing district courts to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order); L.R. 41.1(c) (authorizing district court to dismiss for lack of prosecution); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (courts have the inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Collins v. Lake Helen, L.P., 249 F. App’x 116, 120 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[Dlistrict court|s] possesses the inherent power to police [their] docket[s]” and to prune out those cases left to languish by their litigants). SO ORDERED, this _10th_ day of May, 2019. Any Lor (lay. CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Helms v. Macy's Retail Holding, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helms-v-macys-retail-holding-inc-gasd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack