Quinn v. Ford Motor Company et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|March 29, 2012
JUDGMENT, pursuant to 82 Order entered this date, all Quinn's claims against TRW Safety Systems, Inc., TRW Automotive Safety Systems Arkansas, Inc., Autoliv ASP, Inc., & John Does 4-10 are dismissed without prejudice. All Quinn's claims against Ford & Jaguar are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the parties' settlement, with the Court retaining jurisdiction unil 4/30/2012 over that settlement. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 3/29/2012. (jct)
|July 19, 2011
ORDER denying 73 MOTION to Extend Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure Deadline. Quinn must identify her experts & provide their opinions by 7/22/11. All other deadlines remain unchanged. As to Autoliv, the record is now clear that this company ha d nothing to do with the seatbelts or the pretensioners & the Court dismisses all claims against Autoliv without prejudice. Autoliv's 68 MOTION to Extend Time to file a late answer is denied as moot. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/19/2011. (jct)
|July 6, 2011
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER governing the production and protection of documents produced by Autoliv which it considers confidential and proprietary; granting 66 Unopposed MOTION for Protective Order filed by Autoliv ASP Inc. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/6/2011. (mkf)
|June 8, 2010
ORDER granting 43 Joint MOTION to Continue and for Extension of Discovery. A revised final scheduling order & new trial setting will issue in due course. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/8/2010. (jct)
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 Arkansas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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.
Why Is My Information Online?