In the Matter of: Bertucci Contracting Co., L.L.C.
| Bertucci Contracting Co., L.L.C. |
| Daniel P Wagner, Shirley J Wagner, Michael J Appleton, Michelle H Appleton, Disposal Services, Inc. and Tammany Holding Company, LLC |
| Tammany Holding Company, LLC |
| 2:2012cv00664 |
| March 9, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| New Orleans Office |
| Jefferson |
| Carl Barbier |
| Daniel E. Knowles |
| Other Personal Property Damage |
| 46 U.S.C. ยง 30504 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
576
ORDER & REASONS: ORDERED that Limitation Petitioners Bertucci Contracting Co., LLC and NASDI, LLCs Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 538) is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Tammany Holding Company, LLC's claims against Limitation Petitioners in the above-captioned Limitation Action are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FURTHER ORDERED that Tammany Holding Company, LLC's Motion to Lift Stay (Rec. Doc. 555) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 8/19/15. (Reference: 12-664, 12-697)(sek)
|
|
Filing
474
ORDER & REASONS: denying 431 Motion to Bifurcate Issues at Trial. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 1/8/15. (Reference: all cases)(sek)
|
|
Filing
427
ORDER & REASONS denying 380 Motion for Relief Based on Spoliation of Evidence. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 10/29/14. (Reference: all cases)(sek)
|
|
Filing
323
ORDER that the 272 Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth in document. The Court further denies all requests for fees and costs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 5/27/14. (Reference: All Cases)(plh) Modified doc type on 5/27/2014 (plh).
|
|
Filing
255
ORDER & REASONS: granting 134 Motion to Dismiss the Cross-Claim of Tammany Holding Co., L.L.C. pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) on the Basis of Eleventh Amendment Immunity filed by Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration State of Louisiana, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. FURTHER ORDERED that Tammany Holding Co., L.L.C.'s cross-motion against the State is hereby DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 11/5/13. (Reference: 12-664, 12-697)(sek, )
|
|
Filing
126
ORDER & REASONS: For the foregoing reasons, Claimants' Motions, Rec. Docs. 70 , 73 , 87 , are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) There is admiralty jurisdiction over the vessel-based claims relating to the vessels transiting the canal (vessel trespass claims, etc.). There is no admiralty jurisdiction over the land-based claims relating to the noise, dust, and vibrations emanating from the concrete crushing operation at the staging area. The Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the land-based claims. (2) Claimants' request for a more definite statement is denied. (3) The injunction will be relaxed with respect to the land-based claims. A separate order will issue to this effe ct. The injunction is maintained, for the time being, with respect to the vessel-based claims. The Court will consider relaxing this aspect of the stay if the appropriate stipulations are entered. (4) Privity and knowledge are merit issues not appropriate for resolution at this time. (5) Counsel should promptly advise the Court as to whether the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Rec. Doc. 95 , is moot. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 6/8/12. (Reference: all cases)(sek, )
|
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 Louisiana Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
