Ho-Chunk Nation v. Bank of America, N.A.

6 Am. Tribal Law 353
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ho-Chunk Nation v. Bank of America, N.A.. Read the opinion of the Court — 6 Am. Tribal Law 275
Ho-Chunk Nation Trial Court·Decided November 13, 2006·No. No. CV 02-93·Published

Opinion

ORDER (Requiring Status Updates)

TODD R. MATHA, Chief Judge.

The Ho-Chunk Nation : Judiciary has continually recognized the principle that a plaintiff maintains the burden to prosecute its case. See, e.g., Joseph D. Ermenc v. HCN Whitetail Crossing, CV 01-88 (HCN Tr. Ct., Sept. 11, 2003) at 6. Applicable procedural rules identify the consequences of prolonged periods of activity. The Court may sua sponte “move to dismiss an action if there has been no filing or activity on the reeord for six (6) months.” Ho-Chunk Nation Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(C).1

On August 28, 2006, the plaintiff, Ho-Chunk Nation, by and through Attorney Justice E. Lindell, requested a continuance of certain judicial deadlines on behalf of both parties, but has not subsequently corresponded with the Court. The Court acquiesced to the mutual request, but, to reiterate, the plaintiff must prosecute its case. The Court shall require the plaintiff to file status updates at minimum six (6) month intervals beginning on or before December 1, 2006.

Footnotes

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

Ho-Chunk Nation v. Bank of America, N.A., 6 Am. Tribal Law 353 (hochunkct 2006).

6 Am. Tribal Law 353 (Ho-Chunk Nation v. Bank of America, N.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.