Sprint Communications Company, L.P. v. Western Innovations, Inc.
| 2:2006cv02064 |
| August 25, 2006 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Roslyn O Silver |
| Personal Property: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1396 - Tort Negligence |
| Defendant |
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
278
OPINION - It is apparent to this Court that the Court's discussion of loss of use damages in the March 9, 2009 Order 211 was incomplete; specifically, it did not address the question of the onetime installation fee claimed by Plaintiff as part of the rental cost of a substitute cable. This opinion addresses that matter. Accordingly, the Court adopts the view of the Patriot court. A one-time nstallation charge is not appropriately calculated as an element of loss of use damages unless it s pro-rated in a reasonable fashion, as Sprint has pro-rated the hourly rental charges. (see opinion for full details). Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 5/21/09. (DMT, )
|
|
Filing
276
ORDER denying 223 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 5/21/09.(DMT, )
|
|
Filing
263
ORDER granting Dft Western Innovations, Inc.'s 212 Motion for Clarification and denying Dft Western Innovations, Inc.'s 213 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 5/5/09. (see order for full details) (SAT)
|
|
Filing
211
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED Sprint's 156 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment isGRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART in accordance with this opinion. FURTHER ORDERED Haydon's 159 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART in accordance with this opinion. FURTHER ORDERED Western's 164 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. FURTHER ORDERED the parties submit a Joint Statement of the Case, no more than two short paragraphs. FURTHER ORDE RED the parties shall review the Court's standard Juror Questionnaire (available on the Court's website) and submit NO MORE THAN FIVE PROPOSED QUESTIONS EACH (or ten jointly) to be added to the standard Juror Questionnaire with the Court� 39;s approval no later than 4/24/09. FURTHER ORDERED the parties re-submit proposed Jury Instructions in compliance with the procedures available on the Court's website. FURTHER ORDERED the parties provide the Court with excerpts of the depositi on testimony they propose to present at trial, in compliance with the procedures available on the Court's website. If either party objects to the proposed testimony, an explanation of the objections is to be set forth independently and appended to the depositions no later than 4/2/09. FURTHER ORDERED all Motions in Limine are due 30 days from the date of this Order. Responses are due ten days afterward. FURTHER ORDERED the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order is due 4/2/09. FURTHER ORDERED the pa rties are to file the proposed trial schedule no later than 5/8/09. FURTHER ORDERED a final pretrial conference is set for 5/22/09 at 1:30 P.M. FURTHER ORDERED a Status Hrg to review Juror Questionnaires is set for 5/26/09 at 3:00 P.M. FURTHER ORDERED Trial shall begin on 5/27/09 at 8:30 A.M.. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 3/6/09. (see order for full details) (SAT)
|
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 Arizona 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
| Search for this case: Sprint Communications Company, L.P. v. Western Innovations, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
