Jeffrey Gunchick v. Federal Insurance Company et al
| Jeffrey Gunchick |
| Does and Federal Insurance Company |
| 2:2014cv01162 |
| February 14, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Ronald S.W. Lew |
| Patrick J. Walsh |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
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
164
JUDGMENT FOLLOWING JURY TRIAL by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that said Plaintiff, Jeffrey Gunchick recover nothing by reason of his Complaint and that Judgment shall be, and hereby is, entered in favor of Defendant Federal Insurance Company and against Plaintiff Jeffrey Gunchick. SEE JUDGMENT FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jre)
|
|
Filing
122
ORDER Re: DEFENDANT FIC'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-12 by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew: The Court 1) DENIES Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 1 59 ; 2) GRANTS Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 2 60 to Exclude Improper Comparator Evidence of Employees Not Similarly Situated with Plaintiff; 3) VACATES AS MOOT Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 3 61 for an Order Offsetting Disability Related Payments; 4) DENIES Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 4 62 to Exclude All Evidence of Or Testimony Relating to Claims or Causes of Action that are not at Issue at the Time of Trial; 5) GRANTS Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 5 63 and the Court will exclude the testimony of Dr. William H. Mouradian and Dr. Michael Blumenfield; 6 ) GRANTS Defendants Motion in Limine No. 6 64 and the trial subpoena issued by Plaintiff Jeffrey Gunchick ordering the Custodian of Records/Person Most Knowledgeable shall be quashed; 7) DENIES Defendants Motion in Limine No. 7 65 to Exclude Im proper Lay Opinions, Speculation, or Conclusions Regarding Personnel Actions Taken Against Plaintiff; 8) DENIES Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 8 66 to Preclude the Use of the Terms and Phrases "Discrimination," "Retaliation," "Harassment," etc.; 9) GRANTS Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 9 67 and references to Plaintiffs alleged complaint of sexual harassment in 2005 shall be excluded; 10) DENIES Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 10 68 to Ex clude all Evidence and Testimony Regarding Speculative Economic Damages; 11) GRANTS Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 11 69 and the trial shall be bifurcated into liability and damages phases; 12) GRANTS Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 12 70 . Plaintiff, his counsel, and his witness are ordered not to make any reference to Defendant's putative wealth until such time as Plaintiff has met his burden of establishing malice, oppression or fraud sufficient to enable the trier of fact to contemplate an award of punitive damages. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER AND COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)
|
|
Filing
117
ORDER Re: DEFENDANT FIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 22 by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The Court DENIESDefendants Motion for Summary Judgment or, in theAlternative, Partial Summary Judgment. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER AND COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)
|
|
Filing
21
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh re Joint REQUEST for Protective Order for regarding the use and protection of Confidential Information 20 . See order for details. (jy)
|
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.
