Plummer et al v. Terex Corporation et al
| Dezirie Plummer and John Plummer |
| Terex South Dakota Inc, MRT Manufacturing Inc, Formerly Forestry Inc, Godbersen-Smith Construction Company, John Does, Terex Corporation, Terex USA LLC and Terex Utilities Inc |
| 2:2012cv00192 |
| September 25, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Helena Office |
| Woodruff |
| D. P. Marshall |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability |
| Both |
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
205
JUDGMENT re 204 Order. All claims against MRT Manufacturing Inc., Terex Corporation, Terex USA LLC, Terex Utilities Inc., and the Doe Defendants are dismissed without prejudice. All claims against Golbersen-Smith Construction Company, Formerly Forestry, and Terex South Dakota Inc., are dismissed with prejudice. Formerly Foresty's cross-claim against all Terex entities is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/28/2014. (jak)
|
|
Filing
148
ORDER: For the reasons stated on the record at the 21 May 2014 hearing, the Court makes the following order. 67 Motion denied without prejudice to limiting instructions being given at trial as need be. 80 Motion granted in part and denied without prejudice in part. Olson is qualified as an expert, but the Plummers may raise the asserted changes in his opinion by separate motion. 82 Motion granted in part and denied in part. Moore is qualified as an expert in engineering, but cannot offer t estimony on the warnings issues. 126 Motion mostly granted, except as to Geasland's testimony. 84 Motion as supplemented by 103 , is denied. 94 Motion is denied without prejudice to the Court's reconsideration. 87 Motion for Partia l Summary Judgment is denied. 86 Motion as supplemented by 105 & 111 , is granted as to the strict liability claim; denied as to the negligence, warnings, and warranty claims. 90 Motion remains under advisement. The Court granted Plummers 9; oral motion to amend their complaint. The Court further requested simultaneous brief due 30 May 2014. The trial in this case is rescheduled to begin 16 July 2014. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/23/2014. (jak) (Docket text modified on 5/23/2014 to correct a typographical error).(jak)
|
|
Filing
102
ORDER pursuant to the telephone conference held today, the Plummers' recent 30(b)(6) notice and amended notice of deposition are quashed without prejudice. Terex should provide a responsive affidavit that goes the extra mile as soon as practicable. If the parties remain in disagreement, the Court will consider a 30(b)(6) deposition at some mutually convenient date in May, notwithstanding the close of discovery at the end of April. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 4/25/2014. (jak)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER granting 69 Motion for Partial Voluntary dismissal. The Plummers' claims against Formery Forestry, Inc. are dismissed with prejudice. Formerly Forestry's cross claim against Terex entities remains pending. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 4/1/2014. (jak)
|
|
Filing
44
ORDER attaching the report on discovery. The parties may contact the Court if new issues arise. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 4/23/13. (kpr)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER granting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing all claims against Godberson-Smith Construction Company with prejudice. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 2/14/13. (kpr)
|
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 Arkansas Eastern 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.
