Raffile v. Executive Aircraft Maintenanceet al
| Sheryl Ann Raffile |
| Barron Thomas Scottsdale LLC and Unknown Parties |
| 2:2012cv00365 |
| February 22, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| David G Campbell |
| Airplane Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
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
90
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 67 EAM's Motion to Dismiss, as set forth in this order. Plaintiff's strict products liability claim against EAM is dismissed; granting 73 Saunder's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/25/12.(TLJ)
|
|
Filing
42
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James O. Browning: (i) denying the request in the Letter from Lisa C. Ortega to the Court (39); (ii) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff Sheryl Ann Raffile's Application and/or Motion to Transfer Action to District Court of Arizona in Lieu of Dismissing Defendants Executive Aircraft Maintenance and Steven W. Saunders (32); (iii) overruling the Objection to Rule 54(b) Final Judgment Form Submitted by Defendant Executive Aircraft Maintenance (40); and (iv) overruling Defendant Executive Aircraft Maintenance's Objection to Plaintiff's Proposed Order Regarding Transfer of Action (41). (jb) [Transferred from nmd on 2/22/2012.]
|
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
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.
