Whiting et al v. Hogan et al
Plaintiff:
Larry Whiting, Leroy Whiting and Lorenzo Garcia
Defendant:
Mayflower Transit LLC, Clark Moving and Storage Incorporated and Dana A Hogan
Case Number:
3:2012cv08039
Filed:
February 29, 2012
Court:
Arizona District Court
Office:
Prescott Division Office
County:
XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:
G Murray Snow
Nature of Suit:
Motor Vehicle
Cause of Action:
28:1441
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 |
|---|---|---|
| August 28, 2013 | 162 |
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 155 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' claims of (1) negligent hiring; (2) negligent supervision; and (3) negligent entrustment are dismissed from Counts Two and Three of this action, (Doc. 1-1, Compl. at 813; Doc. 21, Amend. Compl.). (See document for further details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/28/13. (LAD)
|
| June 7, 2013 | 154 |
ORDER that Defendants' 135 Protective Order Re: Dana Hogan's Continued Deposition is granted. ORDERED that Defendants' 143 Motion for Sanctions is granted, as follows: Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to pay Defendants' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in responding to the 133 Motion to Show Cause and in bringing the 135 Motion for Protective Order. ORDERED that Plaintiff's 133 Motion for Sanctions is denied. ORDERED denying Plaintiffs' 140 Motion to Expedite as being moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 152 Motion for Consolidated Argument and/or Decision is granted. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/7/2013. (See Order for details.)(LFIG)
|
| May 16, 2013 | 141 |
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 116 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Experts. The deadline for deposing Plaintiffs' expert witnesses will be extended by four weeks to 6/14/13. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 5/16/13. (LAD)
|
| March 14, 2013 | 110 |
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Confer in Good Faith (Doc. 105 ) is granted, as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to pay Defendants' reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in attending the teleconference with the Court on November 29, 2012 and responding to Plaintiffs' discovery motion (Doc. 99 ) pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(j) and upon Defendants' application in compliance with Local Rule 54.2. IT IS FURTHE R ORDERED, that Plaintiffs' Motion to Re-Open Defendant Dana A. Hogans deposition (Doc. 99 ) is granted.... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions for Defendant Hogan's Discovery Abuses (Doc. 99 ) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions of Defendants Mayflower and Clark (Doc. 99) is granted.... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the deadline for completing Hogan's second deposition, the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, and related filings shall be extended to May 13, 2013. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/14/13. (LAD)
|
| February 28, 2012 | 42 |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James O. Browning granting Defendant Hanover Insurance Group's Motion to Dismiss 7 and granting in part and denying in part Defendant Mayflower Transit LLC's Motion to Dismiss 19 , Clark Moving & Storage Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss 27 , and Defendant Dana A. Hogan's Motion to Dismiss 33 . (jb) [Transferred from nmd on 2/29/2012.]
|
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 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.
