Free Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law - District Court of Colorado - Colorado


File Size: 11.8 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Colorado
Category: District Court of Colorado
Author: unknown
Word Count: 278 Words, 1,857 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cod/9182/465.pdf

Download Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law - District Court of Colorado ( 11.8 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law - District Court of Colorado
Case 1:01-cv-02199-MSK-MEH

Document 465

Filed 04/16/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger Civil Action No. 01-cv-02199-MSK-MEH MICHAEL E. CLAWSON, Plaintiff, v. MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY, L.L.C., ARCH WESTERN RESOURCES, L.L.C. a Delaware corporation, and ARCH COAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ______________________________________________________________________________ THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to the Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) (# 458). As the motion acknowledges, the issues it re-raises have already been presented to the Court and ruled upon. Assuming that the motion is necessary for the Defendants to preserve certain rights on appeal, it is abundantly clear that the motion raises no new issues or arguments

Case 1:01-cv-02199-MSK-MEH

Document 465

Filed 04/16/2007

Page 2 of 2

that have not been previously and conclusively adjudicated by the Court,1 and that no substantive response from the Plaintiff is necessary. For these reasons, and for the reasons stated by the Court in its Order (# 447) of January 24, 2007, the Defendants' Motion is DENIED. Dated this 16th day of April, 2007 BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger United States District Judge

The Motion does raise objections to certain evidentiary rulings by the Court at the March 27, 2007 evidentiary hearing (# 456), but offers no meaningful argument as to how the Court' s rulings were in error, nor does it attach a transcript of that hearing to permit the Court to reconsider its evidentiary rulings. Accordingly, this portion of the motion is denied on its merits.

1