Maricopa, County of v. Office Depot Incorporated
| Maricopa, County of |
| Office Depot Incorporated |
| 2:2014cv01372 |
| June 19, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| H Russel Holland |
| Other Contract |
| 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
237
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Office Depot's Motion to Bifurcate Trial (Doc. 226 ) is granted. The parties shall meet and confer to identify a mutually agreeable time to depose Ms. Bullerdick before she becomes unavailable [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 2/6/20. (MAW)
|
|
Filing
225
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Office Depot's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 208 ) is denied; and (2) Maricopa County's cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. 213 ) is denied [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 1/13/20. (MAW)
|
|
Filing
224
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Maricopa County's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 206 ) is denied [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 12/13/19. (MAW)
|
|
Filing
217
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice Maricopa County's Motion to Allow Filing Under Seal (Doc. 215 ) [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 11/13/19. (MAW)
|
|
Filing
211
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Maricopa County's motion for reconsideration re: CCSF audit (Doc. 207 ) is denied; and (2) With respect to Maricopa County' motion for reconsideration re: Krivoshia (Doc. 206 ), Office Depot is ordered to file a response (not to exceed 11 pages) by November 4, 2019, and Maricopa County may file a reply (not to exceed seven pages) by November 12, 2019 [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 10/25/19. (MAW)
|
|
Filing
203
ORDER granting 155 Motion in Limine; denying 156 Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice 157 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 158 Motion in Limine; denying 159 Motion in Limine; granting 160 Motion in Limin e; granting in part and denying in part 161 Motion in Limine; denying 171 Motion in Limine; denying 172 Motion to Preclude Expert Opinions of Kent Ratliff and Dr. Bruce Strombom. Office Depot may file a motion for summary judgment limited t o the issue of the statute of limitations. Office Depot's motion must be filed by October 23, 2019, Maricopa Countys opposition must be filed by November 6, 2019, and Office Depots reply must be filed by November 13, 2019. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 10/9/19. (LAD)
|
|
Filing
130
ORDER granting 112 Motion for Attorney Fees. Defendant is awarded $610,402.56 in attorneys' fees and $68,277.29 in non-taxable expenses, for a total of $678,679.85. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 05/10/2017.(KAS)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER - defendant's motion to dismiss 10 is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's contract claims that are based on allegations that defendant breached the Master Agreement are dismissed and plaintiff's fraud claims are di smissed. The motion is otherwise denied. Plaintiff's contract claims are not barred by the statute of limitations and plaintiff has stated plausible contract claims based on allegations that defendant breached the Administration Agreement. Plaintiff is not given leave to amend any of the dismissed claims as amendment would be futile. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 11/21/2014.(KMG)
|
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.
