Juan Medina et al v. Pile Trucking Inc et al
| Juan Medina and Ramona Medina |
| Does, Earl Pile Trucking, Alvin Flynn and Pile Trucking Inc |
| 2:2011cv06329 |
| August 1, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Jay C. Gandhi |
| George H. King |
| Motor Vehicle |
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
145
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT (NUNC PRO TUNC TO NOVEMBER 2, 2012) by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. This action came on regularly for jury trial on October 30, 2012, before the Honorable Patrick J. Walsh, Magistrate Judge. Based on the jury' s verdict, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiffs JUAN MEDINA and RAMONA MEDINA and against Defendants PILE TRUCKING, INC. and ALVIN FLYNN in the sum of two million six hundred and twenty five thousand dollars and zero cents ($2,625,000.00) with interest thereon at the legal rate until paid, 140 . (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ca)
|
|
Filing
105
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (1) IMPOSING SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND DEFENDANTS COUNSEL; AND (2) GRANTING LEAVE TO PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR FEES AND COSTS by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. The Court imposes sanctions in the follow ing amounts: 1. Sanctions in the amount of $1,500.00 each as to Defendant Alvin Flynn and Defendant Pile Trucking, Inc. 2. Sanctions in the amount of $3,000.00 as to Barry C. Snyder. 3. Sanctions in the amount of $1,500.00 as to Sean R. Burnett. 4. Sanctions in the amount of $500.00 as to Gregory M. Smith. Plaintiffs and their counsel are granted leave to file an application, sufficiently supported with evidence, seeking a recoupment of the fees and costs, including attor neys fees and expert costs, that Plaintiffs and their counsel incurred for their preparation, attendance, and participation in the settlement conference at issue. The parties should meet and confer, fully and diligently, on this application prior to its filing. (See Order for Complete Details) (rp)
|
|
Filing
82
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND DEFENDANTS COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 16 by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi, The Court is contemplatin g that Plaintiffs and their counsel should be granted leave to file an application, sufficiently supported with evidence, seeking a recoupment of the fees and costs, including attorneys fees and expert costs, that Plaintiffs and their counsel incurre d for their preparation, attendance, and participation in the settlement conference at issue. Accordingly now, Defendant Alvin Flynn, Defendant Pile Trucking Inc., Barry C. Snyder, Sean R. Burnett, and Gregory M. Smith, and each of them, shall show a ll cause, if any there be, why each of them should not be sanctioned for the reasons stated above, including the alleged sanctionable conduct of failing to comply with the Courts Order of March 7, 2012 and pursuant to the Courts sanctioning authority under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Ninth Circuit precedent, and for any other reasons whatsoever that Defendants and Defendants counsel may wish to submit for consideration on the sanctions issue. In response to the foregoing Order to Show Cause, Defendants and Defendants counsel shall submit their brief(s), along with any evidence, on or before July 24, 2012. Counsel are reminded to file mandatory paper chambers copies. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (lmh)
|
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.
