Carlone v. Asbestos Workers Local 34 et al
||Patrick A. Carlone
||Asbestos Workers Local 34 and Roger LeClaire
||April 4, 2013
||Minnesota District Court
||Janie S. Mayeron
||Susan Richard Nelson
|Nature of Suit:
||Labor: Labor/Mgt. Relations
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|October 25, 2013
ORDER ADOPTING 29 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. Plaintiff's Rebuttal/Motion [Doc. No. 30] is OVERRULED; 2. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 29] is ADOPTED; 3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complain t [Doc. No. 4] is DENIED; 4. Plaintiff's Motion/Injunction [Doc. No. 22] is DENIED; and 5. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall serve and file an amended complaint that meets the requirements of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will proceed to dismiss this lawsuit (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 10/25/13. (LPH) cc: P. Carlone Modified on 10/25/2013 (GMW).
|April 24, 2014
ORDER re 64 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. Defendants' Motion for Sanctions and Attorney's Fees Pursuant to Rule 11 [Docket No. 35] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a. Defendants' request for attorney fees and cost s is denied; b. Plaintiff's suit is dismissed with prejudice; and c. Plaintiff is precluded from filing any new lawsuits, complaints, or charges of any kind against defendants, their officers or agents (including against defendants' att orneys arising out of their past, present or future representation of defendants) in the District of Minnesota unless he is represented by counsel and obtains prior written approval from the Chief Judge of the District of Minnesota. 2. Plaintiff 's Motion for Employment [Docket No. 54] is DENIED as moot based on the dismissal of this action. 3. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Docket No. 55] and Amended Counter Lawsuit Malicious Prosecution [Docket No. 59] are DENIED and this case i s DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 4. Plaintiff's Motion to Remove all of the Defendants' Exhibits [Docket No. 60] is DENIED, as plaintiff has failed to set forth an adequate basis for the removal of all of defendants' exhibits in this action (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 4/24/14. (LPH)
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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System