Russell v. Motorola Inc Mobile Business Devices et al
| Larry Craig Russell |
| John Martens, Motorola Inc Mobile Business Devices, Dorothy Hodges, Susan Kane, Russell Cellular-Verizon and Matthew Quigley |
| 4:2011cv00764 |
| October 21, 2011 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Little Rock Office |
| Faulkner |
| D. P. Marshall |
| Personal Injury- Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
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
82
JUDGMENT re 81 Order dismissing plaintiff's claims against defendants with prejudice. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 1/23/13. (kpr)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER granting 41 Motion to Seal; granting 42 Motion to Compel and giving plaintiff until July 13, 2012 to provide Motorola with the information outlined in this Order; and denying 46 Motion to Dismiss. The Court reopens the window for service until July 30, 2012. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/29/12. (kpr)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER allowing Larry Craig Russell to bring his cellular telephone to the June 28, 2012 hearing. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/28/12. (kpr)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER granting 13 Motion to Dismiss Parties. Defts Dorothy Hodges, Susan Kane, Matthew Quigley and John Martens are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 2/15/12. (kpr)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
