Creech v. Emerson Climate Technologies, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Ernest Creech
Defendant: Emerson Climate Technologies, Inc. and White-Rodgers
Case Number: 3:2015cv00014
Filed: January 13, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Dayton Office
County: HAMILTON
Presiding Judge: Walter H Rice
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
April 18, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 99 DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (DOCS. ## 77 , 94 ); PARTIES TO FILE JOINT REVISED RULE 26(f) REPORT NO LATER THAN MAY 6, 2019; CONFERENCE CALL SET FOR MAY 13, 2019 AT 4:30 P.M. EDT. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 4/18/2019. (srb)
April 5, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 95 PROPOSED QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 4/5/2018. (srb)
April 4, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 93 ORDER granting 92 Motion to Unseal Documents- THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff Ernest McCown Creech's Unopposed Motion to Unseal Document. Having reviewed the motion, the record, and otherwise being duly advised, it is hereby ORDER ED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Plaintiffs Motion to Unseal Document is hereby GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff may file an unsealed, redacted version of his Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certification, and Exhibits A, B, E, N, 0, P, Q, R, S, T, and U to Rachel Soffin's declaration in support of the Motion (Exhibit I). Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 4/4/18. (kma)
November 9, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 76 ORDER granting 75 Motion to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 11/9/17. (pb)
February 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 66 DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE OR DISMISS CLASS ALLEGATIONS FROM THE SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (DOC. # 53 ). - This matter is currently before the Court on Defendant's Motion to S trike or Dismiss Class Allegations from the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Doc. # 53 . Having reviewed the parties' briefs, Docs. ## 53 , 59 , 60 , the Court concludes that it cannot decide the class certification issue without a choice-of-law analysis. Given that neither party has yet provided the Court with a thorough choice-of-law analysis, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's motion as premature. The Court plans to decide the class certification issue only on a fully - briefed motion for class certification, to be filed by Plaintiff at a later date. The Court will schedule a Preliminary Pretrial Conference, and then issue a Scheduling Order setting appropriate deadlines. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 2/27/2017. (srb)
September 9, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 58 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL - ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Plaintiffs Motion is hereby GRANTED.2. Plaintiff may file his unredacted Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike or Dismiss and Documents under seal. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Dayton, Ohio this 9th day of September,2016. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 9/9/2016. (srb)
February 2, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 37 DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS PREMATURE, DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS FROM THE AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (DOC. # 28 ); PLAINTIFF GIVEN 45 DAYS TO CONDUCT LIMITED DISCOVERY ON CLASS CERTIFICATION ISSUE, AND AN ADDITIONAL 15 DAYS TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT. - If Plaintiff files a Second Amended Class Action Complaint, Defendants have until the close of business on Wednesday, April 20, 2016, to file whatever motion(s) directed to said Second Class Action Complaint deemed necessary. Should any such motion(s) be filed, same shall be briefed according to the Rules of Court. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 2/2/2016. (srb)
October 29, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 22 DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (DOC. # 17 ); SAID PLEADING TO BE FILED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS; OVERRULING AS MOOT THE REMAINDER OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISSUNDER CIVIL RULE 12(b)(6), WHICH THE COURT HAS CONVERTED TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. # 8 ), AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS FROM THE CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (DOC. # 9 ). Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 10/29/2015. (srb)
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 Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Creech v. Emerson Climate Technologies, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ernest Creech
Represented By: Jonathan B Cohen
Represented By: Rachel Soffin
Represented By: Robert R Sparks
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: Emerson Climate Technologies, Inc.
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: White-Rodgers
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?