UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RITZ, No. 1:2007cv01167 - Document 146 (S.D. Ind. 2011)

Court Description: ENTRY ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT: For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Ronald Ritz's Motion to Reconsider 144 is DENIED. The Government's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment 139 is also DENIED ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 7/14/2011. (DWH)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RITZ Doc. 146 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. THOMAS J. RITZ, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Cause No. 1:07-cv-1167-WTL-DML ENTRY ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT Before the Court is a Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Docket No. 139) filed by the Government and a Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 144) filed by Defendant Ronald Ritz. Both motions are fully briefed, and the Court, being duly advised, now rules as follows. I. MOTION TO RECONSIDER Defendant Ronald Ritz1 seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Entry on Remedy (Docket No. 138). Ronald argues that the imposed penalty is unduly harsh given the facts of this case. Having read Ronald’s brief, and the Government’s response thereto, the Court now DENIES Ronald’s motion. Ronald has not raised any argument that the Court did not consider in reaching its original decision, nor has he demonstrated to the Court that the original ruling was in error. II. MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT The Government filed a Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Docket No. 139) against 1 As the parties are aware, Ronald Ritz’s brother Thomas Ritz is a co-defendant in this lawsuit. For convenience, and to avoid any confusion, the Court will refer to Ronald Ritz as “Ronald” in this Entry. Dockets.Justia.com Ronald. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides: When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Pursuant to the Court’s prior rulings, it appears that the only issues remaining in this lawsuit are whether Defendant Thomas Ritz is an owner or operator of a Public Water System, and, if so, what remedy is appropriate. The Court will be setting these issues for trial in the next sixty days by separate entry. The Government has not demonstrated any need for separate judgment to be entered now against Ronald given that the entire case will be resolved within the next few months, thus permitting a single judgment and the opportunity for a single appeal. Accordingly, the Government’s motion is DENIED. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Ronald Ritz’s Motion to Reconsider (Docket No. 144) is DENIED. The Government’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Docket No. 139) is also DENIED. SO ORDERED: 07/14/2011 _______________________________ Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Copies to all counsel of record via electronic notification. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.