Bretta Pollara v. Radiant Logistics Inc et al
| Bretta Pollara |
| Radiant Logistics Inc and Does |
| Radiant Logistics Inc |
| Daniel Reffner, Santini Productions, Bretta Pollara, DOES 1-10, inclusive, Oceanair, Inc. and Martha Brennan |
| 2:2012cv00344 |
| January 13, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| John E. McDermott |
| Gary A. Feess |
| Contract: Other |
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
331
JUDGMENT by Judge Gary A. Feess, in favor of Oceanair, Inc., Santini Productions, Bretta Pollara against DBA Distribution Services Inc, Radiant Logistics Inc Related to: Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law,, Order on Motion for New Tria l, 329 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: 1. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Bretta Santini Pollara, Santini Productions, and Oceanair on all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit; 2. Plaintiffs DBA Distribution Servic es, Inc. and Radiant Logistics, Inc. shall recover nothing from Defendants Bretta Santini Pollara, Santini Productions, and Oceanair and the action shall be dismissed on the merits; 3. Defendants Bretta Santini Pollara, Santini Productions, an d Oceanair are determined to be the prevailing parties, and shall recover from Plaintiffs DBA istribution Services, Inc. and Radiant Logistics, Inc. their costs, pursuant to bills of costs to be duly submitted to the Court for adjudication... (PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS) (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lw)
|
|
Filing
295
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Gary A. Feess: Order re: Deposition Excerpts -- Paul Pollara, Kaplan, Crain. The Court has received several pleadings from the parties regarding dispute over the designation of deposition transcripts. (See Docket No s. 263, 272, 276.) The Court finds significant fault on both sides in the way these issues have been handled, but in the interest of getting this case resolved on the merits, will address the substance of the issue presented. To provide the parties with as much notice as possible, the Court is issuing this order prior to completing the review of the Bretta Pollara transcripts. The order will be issued later today. See document for details. (smo)
|
|
Filing
291
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Gary A. Feess: Order re: Further Motion Practice. The Court has received numerous motions from the parties, all of which are essentially motions in limine that were filed after the Court ordered that no further mot ions were to be filed in this Court. The Court has addressed or is in the process of addressing those motions, but will not address any further pre-trial motions. If the parties attempt to file further motions (anymotion after Docket No. 284), the Court will strike the motion and will not consider it. Accordingly, the Court suggests that the parties use the weekend to prepare for trial and not for the purpose of submitting motions that the Court will not consider. (smo)
|
|
Filing
279
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Gary A. Feess: Notice to Counsel. Counsel are notified of the following: 1. The first day of trial will be conducted from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m. Thereafter, trial proceedings will be conducted from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 2:30 to 3:00 p.m. without a lunch break.... See document for details. (smo)
|
|
Filing
270
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Gary A. Feess: Order re: Jury Instructions. The Court has prepared a draft set of jury instructions which accompany this order. This draft set contains a number of general instructions that may or may not be applicable depending on the evidence presented at trial. These general instructions will be modified as necessary at the close of the evidence. See document for details. (smo)
|
|
Filing
262
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Gary A. Feess: Order re: Objections to Exhbits. The Court has now received the parties' revised objections to proposed trial exhibits. The following sets forth the Courts ruling on those objections. See document for details. (smo)
|
|
Filing
38
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott, Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and fro m use for any purpose other than this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles and as set forth herein. re Stipulation for Protective Order 36 (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.
