Waters et al v. AIG Claims, Inc. et al
| Lorrie Waters and Derral Keith Waters |
| AIG Claims, Inc., National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, ExpressJet Airlines, Inc. Consolidated Welfare Benefit Plan and ExpressJet Airlines, Inc. |
| 2:2017cv00133 |
| March 6, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Montgomery Office |
| Pike |
| Gray M. Borden |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 1132 |
| None |
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
228
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review of the record, the Court concludes that AIG's decision was not de novo wrong. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief Concerning Destruction of Evidence (Doc. 163 ) is GRANTED in part. It is granted to the extent that the Court concludes the Defendants have spoliated evidence and are entitled to relief in the form of an adverse inference as to what the vitreous fluid would have shown had it been tested. A ll other requested relief is DENIED. 2. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Robert D. Johnson, Ph.D. (Doc. 169 ) is DENIED. 3. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Janci Lindsay (Doc. 170 ) is DENIED. 4. The Plaintiff s' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 171 ) is DENIED. 5. The Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 172 ) is GRANTED. 6. The Defendants' Motion to Exclude or Limit Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Jimmie Valentine (Doc. 174 ) is DENIED. 7. The parties shall bear their own costs. Signed by Honorable Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr on 6/22/2022. (dmn, )
|
|
Filing
159
ORDER: it is hereby ORDERED, That the Plfs' objection, (Doc. 152 ), is due to be, and hereby is, OVERRULED. Signed by Honorable Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr on 10/30/2020. (cwl, )
|
|
Filing
75
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 66 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED and DENIED as further set out in the opinion and order. Plaintiffs shall file a second amended complaint that com plies with the directives of this order no later than 2/7/2018, and Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' amended complaint no later than 2/21/2018. Because Plaintiffs have withdrawn their motion for summary judgment, as di scussed below, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to lift stay (Doc. 59 is DENIED AS MOOT to the extent it seeks to lift the stay on the briefing of Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and DENIED in all other respects because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that lifting the stay of the Rule 26 deadlines and all discovery is warranted. Once Plaintiffs file their second amended complaint and Defendants answer that complaint, the undersigned will evaluate whether to lift the stay so that discovery maycommence. Plaintiffs have requested to withdraw their motion for sanctions against AIG and National Union. See Doc. 67 at 6. In accordance with that request, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for sanctions (Doc. 60 ) is WITHDR AWN. With respect to Plaintiffs motion for limited discovery, that motion (Doc. 60 ) is DENIED in light of the rulings made in this opinion and order. In light of the above, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate Plaintiffs motion for sanction s and for limited discovery (Doc. 60 ) as a pending motion. Plaintiffs also have requested to withdraw their pending motion for summary judgment. See Doc. 67 at 6. Accordingly, pursuant to this request, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for s ummary judgment (Doc. 37 ) is WITHDRAWN, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate that motion. Defendants pending motions for summary judgment (Docs. 35 & 36 ) are DENIED AS MOOT in light of the rulings made in this opinion and order wi th leave to refile following the filing of Plaintiffs second amended complaint. Plaintiffs' motion for hearing (Doc. 73 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. From this point forward, it is ORDERED that all motions filed in this matter shallindicate in either t he style or the caption of the motion whether the motion is opposed or unopposed. A party may represent to the court whether a motion is opposed or unopposed only after contacting opposing counsel in person or by telephone and obtaining his or her approval to file the motion as opposed or unopposed.Signed by Honorable Judge Gray M. Borden on 1/24/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(dmn, )
|
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 Alabama Middle 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.
