Exide Corporation, et al v. M & B Metal Products
Exide Corporation, Johnson Controls Inc and Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc. |
M & B Metal Products Co., Inc |
2:2000cv01059 |
April 21, 2000 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
T Michael Putnam |
Environmental Matters |
42 U.S.C. § 9607 Real Property Tort to Land |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on June 15, 2001. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 19 ORDER (Final Judgment) filed: the court has been advised by the parties that they have agreed to SETTLE this action; all claims against the dft are hereby Dismissed with prejudice as set out ( by Magistrate-Judge T M. Putnam ) to dismiss case cm (SRJ) |
Filing 18 17 - ORDER granting parties' stipulation to extend ddls [17-1] ( by Magistrate-Judge T M. Putnam ) entered cm (SRJ) |
Filing 17 STIPULATION of parties to extend certain ddls of court's scheduling order of 09/14/00 filed cs (SRJ) |
Filing 16 REPLY by dft M & B Metal Prods to plas' opposition to dft's motion to stay [15-1] w/exhs attached filed cs (SRJ) |
Filing 15 OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to dft's motion to stay [13-1] filed cs (SRJ) |
Filing 14 MOTION by plas Exide Corporation and Johnson Controls Battery Group to compel dft to respond to discovery requests w/exhibits attached filed cs (SRJ) |
Filing 13 MOTION by dft M & B Metal Products to stay until it is able to obtain insurance coverage for alleged claims by pla , or, the the alternative to amend the Court's Scheduling Order filed cs (SRJ) |
Filing 12 ORDER granting motion to substitute Johnson Controls Battery Group Inc as pla instead of Johnson Controls Inc [11-1] filed (by Magistrate-Judge T M. Putnam) cm (Former Employee) |
Filing 11 MOTION by plaintiff Johnson Controls Inc to substitute Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc., as pla instead of Johnson Controls, Inc., filed cs (SRJ) |
Filing 10 NOTICE of CONSENT to final jurisdiction filed by dft M & B Metal Products that they have spoke w/counsel for plas and all parties consent cs (SRJ) |
Filing 9 CONSENT of all parties to trial by Magistrate-Judge, filed; to Magistrate-Judge T M. Putnam (SRJ) |
Filing 8 7 - ORDER granting motion for attorney Brian Gerard Friel and Thomas R Lotterman to appear pro hac vice [7-1] ( by Magistrate-Judge T M. Putnam ) entered cm (Former Employee) |
PRO HAC VICE admission fee paid on 9/21/00 receipt # 200 155781 (Former Employee) |
Filing 7 MOTION by pla Exide Corporation, pla Johnson Controls Inc for attorney Brian Gerard Friel and Thomas R Lotterman to appear pro hac vice filed cs (Former Employee) |
Filing 6 ORDER Scheduling (New Rules) that certain time limits apply as set out; discovery cutoff 3/30/01, dispositive motions due by 8/31/01 by Magistrate-Judge T M. Putnam entered cm (Former Employee) |
Filing 5 Report of Parties (form 35) of compliance with FRCP 26 filed (DWC) |
Filing 4 ORDER that the parties are reminded of their obligations under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) and LR 26.1(d) filed ( by Magistrate-Judge T M. Putnam ) cm (SRJ) |
Filing 3 ANSWER by defendant M & B Metal Products w/appear by atty(s) Frank M Young III, Stephen L Poer filed cs (MAA) |
Filing 2 SUMMONS and complaint returned executed upon dft M & B Metal Products on 7/19/00 filed (Former Employee) |
ALIAS SUMMONS and complaint issued, delivered to pla for service (Former Employee) |
SUMMONS and complaint issued, returned to pla for service (Former Employee) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed, amount paid $150, receipt # 200 150134 (Former Employee) |
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 Alabama Northern 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.