Opinion
3:20-cv-0023
03-28-2022
KEITH NICHOLSEN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and SHAMALI DENNERY, Defendants. SHAMALI DENNERY, Third Party Plaintiff, v. BERNARD WESSELHOFT d/b/a Slim Man’ Parking Lot, Third Party Defendant SHAMALI DENNERY, Cross Claimant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Cross Defendant. SHAMALI DENNERY, Counter Claimant, v. KEITH NICHOLSEN, Counter Defendant.
Thomas Friedberg Law Offices of Friedberg & Bunge San Diego, CA For Plaintiff and Counter Defendant Keith Nicholsen and Third Party Defendant Bernard Wesselhoft Kimberly L. Cole United States Attorney’s Office St. Thomas, VI For Defendant and Cross Defendant United States of America Gaylin Vogel Law Office of Kevin F. D’Amour, PC St. Thomas, VI For Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant Shamali Dennery
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT FOR CONTRIBUTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Thomas Friedberg Law Offices of Friedberg & Bunge San Diego, CA For Plaintiff and Counter Defendant Keith Nicholsen and Third Party Defendant Bernard Wesselhoft
Kimberly L. Cole United States Attorney’s Office St. Thomas, VI For Defendant and Cross Defendant United States of America
Gaylin Vogel Law Office of Kevin F. D’Amour, PC St. Thomas, VI For Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant Shamali Dennery
ORDER
ROBERT A. MOLLOY, Chief Judge 1
BEFORE THE COURT is the motion of the United States of America (the “Government”) to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), filed on June 22, 2020. (ECF Nos. 16). For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion of even date, it is hereby
ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, ECF No. 16, is GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff Nicholsen’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Dennery’s crossclaim is DISMISSED; it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Dennery’s counterclaim is DISMISSED; it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Dennery’s third-party complaint is DISMISSED; it is further 2
ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Dennery’s Crossclaim, ECF No. 40, is MOOT; it is further
ORDERED that the Government’s motions to stay discovery, ECF Nos. 74 and No. 77, are MOOT; it is further
ORDERED that Nicholsen’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 80, is MOOT; it is further
ORDERED that the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 82, is MOOT; it is further
ORDERED that Dennery’s Motion for Certification that Shamali Dennery was Acting within the Scope of his Employment, ECF No. 88, is MOOT; it is further
ORDERED that Dennery’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 94, is MOOT; it is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff SHALL file a motion to amend the complaint, asserting a plausible claim under the FTCA, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of entry of this Order. Defendants SHALL file a response no later than fourteen (14) days after filing and service of the motion. Plaintiff SHALL have ten (10) days after filing and service of Defendants’ response to file a reply. There shall be no further briefing without leave of the Court. 3