-KMT USA v. 2518 Newport Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado et al, No. 1:2009cv02467 - Document 106 (D. Colo. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER. The Unopposed Motion To Dismiss Defendant 1813 Broadview Place Only 104 filed 1/24/2011, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs claims against defendant, 1813 Broadview Place, Fort Collins, Colorado, are DISMISSED. The judgment entered pursuant to this order is CERTIFIED to be a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/26/2011.(sah, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-KMT USA v. 2518 Newport Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado et al Doc. 106 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 09-cv-02467-REB-KMT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 2518 NEWPORT DRIVE, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, 37088 SOARING EAGLE CIRCLE, WINDSOR, COLORADO, 2019 WINFIELD COURT, FORT COLLINGS, COLORADO, and 1813 BROADVIEW PLACE, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, Defendants. ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANT 1813 BROADVIEW PLACE ONLY Blackburn, J. The matter is before me on the Unopposed Motion To Dismiss Defendant 1813 Broadview Place Only [#104] filed January 24, 2011. After reviewing the motion and the file, I conclude that the motion should be granted; that defendant, 1813 Broadview Place, Fort Collins, Colorado should be dismissed; that a Certificate of Reasonable Cause should be issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465(a)(2); and that final judgment should be entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). It appears that there was reasonable cause for the forfeiture and limited seizure of the property at 1813 Broadview Place, Fort Collins, Colorado.1 Thus a Certificate of Reasonable Cause should be issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465(a)(2). After considering carefully all factors relevant to certification of a final judgment 1 “Limited seizure” is a reference to the inspection of the property conducted by plaintiff pursuant to the Writ of Entry [#17] entered November 2, 2009. Dockets.Justia.com under Fed. R. Civ. P. (b) as codified and construed, see, e.g., Stockman’s Water Co., LLC v. Vaca Partners, L.P. , 425 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2005); Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Bruner , 259 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2001), I conclude and determine expressly (1) that there is no just reason for delay, and (2) that the judgment should be certified as a final judgment. See Stockman’s Water Co., F.3d at 1265; CurtissWright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 64 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980). Entry of a final judgment will resolve fully and finally the only dispute between the parties to this motion. In the specific context of the single claim of the plaintiff against the defendant and concomitant claimant, my order and concomitant judgment constitute “an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, 259 F.3d at 1242 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Contrastingly, without entry of a final judgment, claimant may not act vis-a-vis this real property until the litigation is terminated as to all parties, claimants, and claims. There is no just reason to delay entry of judgment on my discreet order concerning this discreet motion presenting a discreet claim until I have resolved conclusively all other pending claims and issues extant among the plaintiff and other defendants, claimants, and litigants. See id. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That the Unopposed Motion To Dismiss Defendant 1813 Broadview Place Only [#104] filed January 24, 2011, is GRANTED; 2. That plaintiff’s claims against defendant, 1813 Broadview Place, Fort Collins, Colorado, are DISMISSED; 2 3. That defendant, 1813 Broadview Place, Fort Collins, Colorado, is DROPPED as a named party to this action, and the case caption is amended accordingly; 4. That a Certificate of Reasonable Cause is GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465; and 5. That the judgment entered pursuant to this order is CERTIFIED to be a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Dated January 26, 2011, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT: 3
]]>
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.
