Jane Doe et al v. Drummond Company, Inc et al
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe and Peter Doe
Defendant:
Drummond Company, Inc, Drummond Ltd, Augusto Jimenez, Alfredo Araujo and James Atkins
Case Number:
7:2009cv01041
Filed:
May 27, 2009
Court:
Alabama Northern District Court
Office:
Western Office
County:
XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:
R David Proctor
Nature of Suit:
Plaintiff
Cause of Action:
28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury
Jury Demanded By:
Plaintiff
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Date Filed | # | Document Text |
|---|---|---|
| November 5, 2013 | 477 |
MEMORANDUM OPINION -re: Motion to Vacate Judgment to Take Limited Discovery Regarding U.S. Conduct and to Allege Diversity Jurisdiction 468 . Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 11/5/2013. (AVC)
|
| July 25, 2013 | 461 |
MEMORANDUM OPINION-re: Motion for Reconsideration or, Alternatively, for a Rule 54(b) Certification 432 . Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 7/25/2013. (AVC)
|
| June 20, 2012 | 386 |
MEMORANDUM OPINION-The court has before it the Renewed Motion to Dismiss 303 . Having considered the briefs and evidentiary submissions, the court finds that Dft Adkins' Motion is due to be granted. Dft Adkins filed a Motion to Strike the Dec laration of Jaime Blanco Maya 311 on the ground that the declaration failed to substantially comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, which statute permits the submission of unsworn declarations in place of sworn affidavits or testimo ny. In their Opposition (Doc. #313), Plaintiffs produced an amended Blanco Declaration which includes the required core language from § 1746. Therefore, the Motion to Strike (Doc. #311) is MOOT. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 6/20/2012. (AVC)
|
| June 15, 2012 | 382 |
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 6/15/2012. (AVC)
|
| April 26, 2012 | 357 |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER-The court has before it Pltfs' Opposed Motion for Issuance of Additional Letters Rogatory to Take Testimony 337 . Pltfs' Motion is GRANTED IN PART. However, the parties are cautioned that, absent either the a greement of the parties or showing of extraordinary good cause, the court will not extend the discovery deadline in this case in the event that testimony from these nine late-issued letter rogatory is not completed by 6/29/2012. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 4/26/2012. (AVC)
|
| April 17, 2012 | 352 |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER -With regard to the pltfs who have been deposed to date, the testimony regarding introductory remarks made by the atty is due to be unsealed because pltfs have not established the applicability of atty cliient privilege. The clerk is DIRECTED to unseal the deposition testimony filed 3/7/2012 327 . Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 4/17/2012. (AVC)
|
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.
