Northrop Grumman v. Ministry of Defense, et al
| 1:2002cv00785 |
| October 24, 2002 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
| Southern Office |
| Walter J. Gex |
| John M. Roper |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1330 Breach of Contract |
| Plaintiff |
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
443
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion 426 for Attorney's Fees and Denying as Moot Defendant's Motion 437 for Relief Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on August 4, 2020. (AW)
|
|
Filing
425
FINAL JUDGMENT: Ordered that judgment is entered against the Defendant in the amount of $137,977,646.43. Ordered that Plaintiff's claims for a maritime lien and for injunctive relief are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 6/4/20. (JCH)
|
|
Filing
423
ORDER Granting Defendant The Ministry of Defense of The Republic of Venezuela's Motion 410 to Dismiss Intervenor Plaintiff Podhurst Orseck P.A.'s Claim. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on May 21, 2020. (AW)
|
|
Filing
406
Memorandum Opinion and ORDER Granting Plaintiff Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc.'s Motion 391 for Recognition and Execution of Arbitration Award. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on March 31, 2020. (AW)
|
|
Filing
370
ORDER granting 369 Motion to Vacate re 6 Bond, 16 Order. Ordered that the Preliminary Injunction ordered by this Court on 11/8/02, is vacated; and that because the Preliminary Injunction was properly issued and vacated, the bond of Plaintiff in support of the temporary restraining order and of the Preliminary Injunction in the amount of $15,000 is released. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 4/6/18. (RLW)
|
|
Filing
241
ORDER denying Defendant's 229 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 229 Motion to Stay Case; denying 231 Motion to Amend/Correct; and denying Plaintiff's 232 Motion to Amend/Correct. See Order for complete text. Signed by District Judge Walter J. Gex III on March 10, 2011. (Gex, Kathleen)
|
|
Filing
227
ORDER granting in part and denying in part the motion 157 to compel arbitration and dismiss filed by Defendant The Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Venezuela; granting in part and denying in part the motion 160 to compel arbitration in this district and retain jurisdiction filed by Plaintiff Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc.; granting the motion 165 for leave to file counterclaim filed by Defendant. See Order for complete text. Signed by District Judge Walter J. Gex III on December 3, 2010. (Gex, Kathleen)
|
|
Filing
226
ORDER denying the motion in limine 175 to strike the testimony of expert witness Antonio Canova Gonzalez filed by Defendant The Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Venezuela. See Order for complete text. Signed by District Judge Walter J. Gex III on August 5, 2010. (Gex, Kathleen)
|
|
Filing
225
ORDER denying the motion in limine 173 to strike the expert witness testimony of Manual a. Gomez filed by the Defendant, The Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Venezuela. See Order for complete text. Signed by District Judge Walter J. Gex III on July 2, 2010. (Gex, Kathleen)
|
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 Mississippi Southern 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
| Search for this case: Northrop Grumman v. Ministry of Defense, et al | |
|---|---|
| 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.
