Cashman Equipment Corp v. Rozel Operating Co. et al
| Cashman Equipment Corp |
| Rozel Operating Co., CNA Ins. Co., St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co., Delta Towing, LLC, Delta Goose, Larose Tugs, LLC and Tampa Bay |
| 3:2008cv00363 |
| June 18, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana |
| Contract: Marine Office |
| East Baton Rouge |
| Christine Noland |
| Ralph E. Tyson |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 28:1333 Admiralty |
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
405
ORDER AND REASONS dismissing for Lack of Jurisdiction re 386 MOTION Enforce Settlement filed by Stokes & Spiehler Offshore, Inc., Rozel Operating Co.; granting 400 Motion to Stay filed by Cashman Equipment Corp. and the execution of the judgment in this action is STAYED pendingthe resolution of the appeal. Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon on 9/12/2013. (CMS)
|
|
Filing
385
ORDER AND REASONS: Cashman's Motion to Correct a Clerical Error Under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 364) is GRANTED and Cashman is awarded pre-judgment interest at the Louisiana interest rate, beginning on August 30, 20 07, as to its damages against Rozel, and beginning on July 1, 2010, as to its damages against Stokes, and post-judgment interest as to its damages against Rozel and Stokes at the federal interest rate from the date of the judgment. Cashman's Mot ion for a New Trial (Doc. #364) is otherwise DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, considering Cashman's Motion for Attorneys' Fees andCosts (Doc. #362), the record, the applicable law, the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Reco mmendation (Doc. #379), and the parties' objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docs. #380, 381), hereby approves the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and adopts it as it s opinion in this matter with respect to theamount of attorneys' fees and costs awarded to Cashman from Rozel. Accordingly, Cashman is awarded $129,669.62 in attorneys' fees and $15,471.12 in costs from Rozel. (Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon) (Nelson, Cesyle)
|
|
Filing
255
ORDER denying 223 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 225 Motion to Strike ; denying 226 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 227 Motion in Limine; denying 228 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 229 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon on 6/28/2012. (CMS)
|
|
Filing
241
ORDERED that 217 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses filed by Rozel Operating Co. is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part as stated within document. (GEC)
|
|
Filing
186
ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part St. Paul's 162 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon. (ECM)
|
|
Filing
133
RULING on MOTIONS: 100 Motion and Application to Have Costs Taxed and 109 Amended Motion and Application to Have Costs Taxed is GRANTED IN PART, as described. IT IS ORDERED that Delta's Motion and Amended Motion for Application to Have Cost s Taxed is DENIED IN PART as to all remaining requested costs. IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall tax costs against pltf, Cashman Equipment Corporation, in the amt of $3,587.82, pursuant to FRCP 54(d)(1) and 28 USC 1920. Signed by Chief Judge Ralph E. Tyson on 6/17/2011. (JDL)
|
|
Filing
121
Ruling: Accordingly, the 65 Motion to Dismiss and Alternatively, for a More Definite Statement filed by third party defendants, James E. Stansbury, III and Stansbury & Associates, LLC, is granted in part, in that third party plaintiff, Rozel Operating Company, Inc., should file an amended third party complaint setting forth a more definite statement of its various claims, and denied in part in all other respects.. Signed by Chief Judge Ralph E. Tyson on 8/23/2010. (CMM, )
|
|
Filing
101
RULING and ORDER as to 84 Motion to Compel is hereby GRANTED IN PART,in that plaintiff, Cashman Equipment Corporation, shall produce copies of any and all depreciation schedules relating to the JMC 109 barge for the years 2005-2008 within fifteen ( 15) days of this Order, and DENIED IN PART, in that Cashman need not produce any depreciation schedules relating to the JMC 107 barge nor pay an award of expenses and attorneys fees in connection with this motion.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine Noland on 05/27/10. (PAH, )
|
|
Filing
74
RULING & ORDER....Accordingly;IT IS ORDERED that defendant, Rozel Operating Company, shall produce to plaintiff, Cashman Equipment Corporation, the following documents that were submitted to the Court for in camera inspection: Rozel 01091 and Rozel 0 1182. The highlighted emails contained in the remaining documents that were submitted are subject to protection under the attorney client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B)and need not be produced. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine Noland on 1/7/2010. (LSM, )
|
|
Filing
72
RULING AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 39 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Cashman Equipment Corp. It is ordered that Rozel shall produce to Cashman all withheld documents involving Stokes, Regions and Blades, ex cept for the documents bates-labeledRozel 00760" and Rozel 01093" and documents similar in nature thereto, within fifteen(15) days of this Order. It is further ordered that Rozel shall produce to the Court for in camera inspection any documents that it deems similar in nature to Rozel 00670" and Rozel01093" within fifteen (15) days of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine Noland on 12/10/09. (LSM, )
|
|
Filing
60
RULING & ORDER...It is ordered that defendant, Rozel Operating Co., shall produce, within ten (10)days of this Order, the first thirty (30) documents involving Stokes & Spiehler, RegionsInsurance, and J.H. Blades (i.e., a total of ninety (90) documen ts) listed in its supplemental privilege log (R. Doc. 52), in the order listed, for the Courts in camera review to determine whether those entities should be considered consultants for purposes of this litigation and whether communications by and for them that are listed in the supplemental privilege log should be protected under the work product doctrine. These copies shall be brought directly to Chambers without being electronically filed into the record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine Noland on 10/6/09. (LSM, )
|
|
Filing
49
RULING & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion to Compel. It is further ordered that defendant, Rozel Operating Co., shall produce a supplemental privilege log in accordance with this Ruling within fifteen (15) days and that the failure to produce such a log will result in a waiver of its claims of privilege. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine Noland on 8/11/09. (LSM, )
|
|
Filing
43
RULING/ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that, within ten (10) days of this Order, plaintiff, Cashman Equipment Corporation, shall notify the Court as to whether its Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (R. Doc. 39) is moot by virtue of the discovery responses su bmitted to it by defendant, Rozel Operating Co., Inc., and if such motion is not moot, Cashman shall file a reply memorandum specifically identifying those discovery responses that it deems to be incomplete and explaining the deficiencies contained therein.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine Noland on 07/14/09. (LSM, )
|
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 Middle 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.
