Lee v. Walman Optical Company
Plaintiff: Scott Lee
Defendant: Walman Optical Company
Case Number: 8:2014cv00272
Filed: September 12, 2014
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Office: 8 Omaha Office
Presiding Judge: F.A. Gossett
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 21, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 71 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Defendant's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses 59 is denied. Plaintiff's cross-motion for attorneys' fees and expenses 64 is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (SLP)
August 27, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 56 ORDER that pursuant to the parties joint stipulation 55 , and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), all counterclaims alleged by Defendant, WalmanOptical Company, against Plaintiff, Scott Lee, are dismissed withprejudice, each party to pay its own costs and fees. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on Defendants counterclaims 44 is denied without prejudice. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (KLF)
July 7, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER that the pretrial conference and jury trial are continued pending further order of the court. If this case is not fully resolved by summary judgment, within ten (10) days after the summary judgment ruling, the parties shall contact Magistrate Judge Zwart's chambers to re-schedule the pretrial conference and trial. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (MBM)
March 26, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER granting 25 Stipulation for Protective Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (MBM)
October 10, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER that the stipulated 14 Motion to Amend is granted ; Plaintiff's third cause of action is dismissed with prejudice; Defendant's 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is denied without prejudice, as moot; and Plai ntiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint in the form of the complaint attached to the stipulated motion no later than five (5) days after entry of this order, and Defendant shall file a response to the amended complaint no later than fourteen (14) days from the date the amended complaint is filed. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (ADB)
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 Nebraska District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lee v. Walman Optical Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Scott Lee
Represented By: Jared C. Olson
Represented By: James D. Sherrets
Represented By: Diana J. Vogt
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Walman Optical Company
Represented By: Martin D. Kappenman
Represented By: Gregory L. Peters
Represented By: Henry L. Wiedrich
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?