LUSBY v. ROLLS-ROYCE CORPORATION
Case Number: 1:2003cv00680
Filed: May 9, 2003
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Labor: Other Office
Presiding Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Presiding Judge: William G. Hussmann
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: U.S. Government Plaintiff
Jury Demanded By: 31:3729 False Claims Act

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 17, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 362 ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS - We DENY Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Ruling on Defendant's Bill of Costs at Docket No. 351, GRANT Defendant's Bill of Costs at Docket No. 341, and award Defendant costs in the amount of $57,282.16, which shall be reimbursed to Defendant forthwith by Plaintiff, Curtis J. Lusby. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 4/17/2013. (CKM)
February 4, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 349 ORDER - denying 343 Motion for Reconsideration *** SEE ORDER ***. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 2/4/2013. (CKM)
September 24, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 339 ORDER granting Defendant's 275 Motion for Summary Judgment. Final judgment shall be entered accordingly (S.O.). Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 9/24/2012. (MAC)
December 1, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 301 ORDER denying 267 Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Discovery and Fourth Request for Production of Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 12/1/2011. (NRN) Modified on 12/1/2011 (NRN).
October 26, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 291 ORDER denying 264 Motion to Enforce the Court's Order of August 8, 2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 10/26/2011. (SMD)
October 14, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 283 ORDER denying 247 Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum, signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 10/14/2011. (MDS)
September 20, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 259 ORDER granting 243 Motion to Compel. Supplementation of answers required by this Order should be completed within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 9/20/2011. (TMD)
August 8, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 242 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 226 Motion to Compel. The request for an extension of time to supplement the motion to compel is DENIED, as moot, in light of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 8/8/2011. (NRN)
July 12, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 179 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 167 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 169 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 7/12/2010. (NRN)
September 16, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 119 ORDER/AMENDED JUDGMENT re 116 Closed Judgment. This cause is DISMISSED with prejudice as to all claims raised by Relator, and DISMISSED without prejudice as to all claims of the United States. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 9/16/08.(MAC)
September 10, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 115 ORDER denying plaintiff's 86 Motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint. Because Mr. Lusby has repeatedly submitted defective pleadings, and because the Court warned him that failure to submit a properly-pleaded complaint would result in dismissal of his action, this Cause will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (S.O.). Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 9/10/08. (MAC)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: LUSBY v. ROLLS-ROYCE CORPORATION
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?