Lawrence v. Pile et al

Plaintiff: Randy Lawrence
Defendant: Morgan Pile, Hall Manufacturing Inc and Brown & Brown Insurance
Case Number: 4:2008cv03615
Filed: October 10, 2008
Court: Arkansas Eastern District Court
Office: Labor: E.R.I.S.A. Office
County: Lonoke
Presiding Judge: J. Leon Holmes
Nature of Suit: Both
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 29:1109 Breach of Fiduciary Duties

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
October 27, 2009 105 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION AND ORDER that the Court hereby alters its prior dismissal of Lawrences's claims against the Hall entities; the Hall entities will remain as defts on pltf's claim for reformation; Lawrence's 87 Motion to Alter or Amend is GRANTED. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 10/27/09. (vjt)
August 24, 2009 86 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION AND ORDER denying Sun Life's 69 MOTION to Dismiss the third party complaint; the Hall entities' 72 MOTION to Dismiss the 4th Amended Complaint as to the claims made against them is GRANTED; Hall Group Incorporated and Hall Tank Company LLC terminated as defts. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 8/24/09. (vjt)
May 7, 2009 58 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION AND ORDER that Pile and Brown & Brown's 47 MOTION to Dismiss Lawrence's Third Amended Complaint and 53 MOTION to Dismiss Hall's Cross-Claim are hereby DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 5/7/09. (vjt)
February 9, 2009 35 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION AND ORDER granting Defts' 27 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint; Counts I & II of the Second Amended Complaint are dismissed without prejudice; if Pltf wishes to file a third amended complaint, he must file a motion for leave to do so within 30 days of the entry of this Order; Defts' 30 MOTION to Stay the Initial Scheduling Order is granted pending a more detailed complaint from Pltf. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 2/9/09. (vjt)
January 5, 2009 25 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION AND ORDER that Defts' 23 request that the Court deny Pltf's motion to amend is DENIED; Pltf's 19 MOTION to Amend Complaint is GRANTED; Pltf must file his second amended complaint within 5 days of the entry of this Order. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 1/5/09. (vjt)

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

Search for this case: Lawrence v. Pile et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Randy Lawrence
Represented By: Luther Oneal Sutter
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Morgan Pile
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Hall Manufacturing Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Brown & Brown Insurance
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?