Water, Inc. v. Everpure, Inc. et al
| Water, Inc. |
| Debra Barton, Does, Pentair, Inc., Mike Madsen, Gerard McKeown, Everpure, Inc., Everpure, LLC, Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC and Purcell Murray Company, Inc. |
| Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC and Everpure, LLC |
| Water, Inc. |
| 2:2009cv03389 |
| May 13, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Los Angeles |
| Collins |
| Segal |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract |
| 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
295
FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Audrey B. Collins, Having considered the Motions for Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings filed by the Defendants Everpure, Inc., Everpure, LLC; Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC, Pentair, Inc., Gerard McKeown, Mik e Madsen and Debra Barton (Everpure Defendants)[Dkt. No. 167] and Purcell Murray Company, Inc. (Purcell Murray) [Dkt. No. 175] (all defendants collectively referenced as Defendants), and having considered the Parties briefing, evidentiary objections, and other submissions relating to those motions, as well as oral argument presented by counsel at the December 19, 2011 hearing on the motions, the Court has reached the following decision, the grounds for which are fully set forth in the December 2 0, 2011 Order Granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings [Dkt. No. 242]: It is ordered that summary judgment is granted in Defendants' favor, that Plaintiff Water (Water) recover nothing, and that all of its cl aims againstDefendants be dismissed on the merits. In addition, having considered the Motion for Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Counter-Defendant Water, Inc. [Dkt. No. 259], and having considered the parties briefing, evident iary objections, and other submissions relating to those motions, the Court has reached the following decision, the grounds for which are fully set forth in the August 2, 2012 Order Granting Water's Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaint iffs Motion to Strike [Dkt. No. 293]: It is ordered that summary judgment is granted in Waters favor, that Counterclaimants Everpure LLC and Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC recover nothing, and that all of their claims against Water be dismissed on the merits. Each party shall bear their own costs incurred in this action. This judgment is final as there remain no other pending claims. RELATED TO: Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Strike, 293 , MOTION for Summary Judg ment as to all claims and judgment on 0the pleadings 167 , Motion Hearing, 241 , MOTION for Summary Judgment as to The Counterclaims of Everpure, LLC and Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC Counter-Defendant Water, Inc.'s Notice of Mo tion and Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative; Partial Summary Judgment, 259 , MOTION for Summary Judgment as to as to all claims and judgment on the pleadings, 175 , Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion to Strike, 242 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lw)
|
|
Filing
256
JUDGMENT AS TO PURCELL MURRAY COMPANY, INC. by Judge Audrey B. Collins: Having considered the Motions for Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings (the "Motions") filed by Purcell Murray Company, Inc. ("Purcell Murray") and having considered the Parties' briefing, evidentiary objections, and other submissions relating to those Motions, as well as oral argument presented by counsel at the December 19, 2011 hearing on the Motions, the Court has reached the following decision, the grounds for which are fully set forth in the December 20, 2011 Order Granting Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings, IT IS ORDERED that summary judgment is granted in Purcell Murrays' favor, th at Plaintiff Water, Inc. recover nothing, that all of its claims against said Defendant be dismissed on the merits, and that said Defendant recover its costs. There being no further claims pending between plaintiff Water, Inc. and defendant Purcell Murray and there being no just reason for delay of entry of Judgment as between these parties, the Clerk is hereby directed to enter Judgment in favor of defendant Purcell Murray and against plaintiff Water, Inc. (bm)
|
|
Filing
245
JUDGMENT DISMISSING WATER, INC.'S CLAIMS by Judge Audrey B. Collins, in favor of Everpure, Inc., Everpure, LLC, Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC, Pentair, Inc., Purcell Murray Company, Inc., Debra Barton, Gerard McKeown, Mike Madsen against W ater, Inc.: It is ordered that summary judgment is granted in Defendants' favor, that Plaintiff Water, Inc. recover nothing, that all of its claims against Defendants be dismissed on the merits, and that Defendants recover their costs at the con clusion of this action. This judgment, awarded pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), is not a final judgment because it does not dispose of Everpure, LLC's and Pentair Residential Filtration LLC's counterclaims against Water, Inc. which remain pending. (bm)
|
|
Filing
58
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal (see Protective Order for specifics). (dhl)
|
|
Filing
56
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal RE PARTIES' STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER (see Memorandum and Order for specifics). (dhl)
|
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 California Central 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.
