Ross et al v. Kopocs et al
Seth Patrick Ross and Eliza Ross |
Frank Kopocs, Covenant Partners Transportation, Inc. and Fort Loudon Waste and Recycling, Inc. |
Frank Kopocs |
Seth Patrick Ross and Fort Loudon Waste and Recycling, Inc. |
1:2014cv00060 |
March 3, 2014 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee |
Chattanooga Office |
McMinn |
Susan K Lee |
Harry S Mattice |
Motor Vehicle |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
Both |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 112 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 81 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 4/13/2015. (aws, ) |
Filing 108 ORDER: All parties SHALL file any motion challenging the admissibility of expert testimony, with supporting memorandum and the expert report at issue, no later than April 14, 2015. To the extent Plaintiffs disclose any rebuttal ex perts as provided in the Courts March 26, 2015 Order [Doc. 102], any motion challenging the admissibility of said rebuttal expert testimony SHALL be due no later than 21 days from the disclosure. The Court will set a hearing on any such motions, if deemed necessary, in due course. The Clerk is DIRECTED to term the notice/motion [Doc. 105].Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 4/1/2015. (aws, ) |
Filing 102 ORDER granting 69 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 84 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The current scheduling order [Doc.30], will be modified as specified in this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on March 26, 2015. (CNC, ) |
Filing 88 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Defendants motion to amend 49 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) Defendants motion to amend is GRANTED IN PART regarding Defendants proposed amendments to remove references to the indepen dent contractor/contractor relationship and instead refer to the employer/employee relationship between Defendants Ross Kopocs and Covenant Partners Transportation, Inc., given Plaintiffs lack of opposition to this amendment; (2) Defendants motion to amend is DENIED IN PART regarding Defendants proposed amendments to assert spoliation of evidence as an affirmative defense. Defendants are ORDERED to file an amended answer within 7 days of this Order that complies with the terms of this Order and the requirements of Local Rule 15.1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 3/4/2015. (aws, ) (DUPLICATE ENTRY) Modified on 3/4/2015 (JLMc, ). |
Filing 66 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion; the original subpoena that requests production of incoming and outgoing calls and text messages, as well as the timing and duration of the calls, is QUASHED. The Court furth er notes that delivery of this Order to Mr. Wieber is not possible, due to what appears to be an intentional omission of any return address or other contact information on his motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 2/5/15. (aws, ) |
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 Tennessee Eastern 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.