Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
1,552 characters extracted
—
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
FOR THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
HALO4ASIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDGEWAY PARKS SERVICE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. RSC-CV-0750
PROPOSED ORDER
PROPOSED ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Upon consideration of Defendant Ridgeway Parks Service’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s
Opposition, the pending Supplemental Motion, and the record in this action, the Court ORDERS
as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
2. No supplemental complaint is presently operative. Plaintiff’s pending filing requests
leave to supplement after later occurring events and does not constitute an unauthorized
supplemental pleading.
3. Plaintiff’s request for leave shall, to the extent necessary, be construed under Rid. R. Civ.
P. 16(6). Plaintiff’s earlier citation to Rule 10(d) is treated as a citation error and does not
alter the substance of the pending request.
4. Defendant’s request to dismiss supplemental claims with prejudice and to direct the Clerk
to close the case is DENIED. The pending Supplemental Motion remains for decision
according to its own briefing and the record.
5. Nothing in this Order determines whether leave to supplement ultimately should be
granted, whether any proposed supplemental claim has merit, or whether any particular
discovery or protective relief should issue. Those matters remain for determination on the
pending motion and developed record.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September __, 2026
_________________________
EffortlessBrit
Superior Court Judge
Ridgeway Superior Court
