Nicoline Ambe et al v. Air France, SA
| Nicoline Ambe and The Estate of the Decedent Ndiforchu Alfred Tamunang |
| Air France, SA |
| 2:2017cv08719 |
| December 4, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Rozella A. Oliver |
| 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
121
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, [Dkt. 94, 95] by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the elements of their case. They have cited no admissible evidence to establish that an accident, as defined under the Montreal C onvention, led to Decedents death. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to show that there is a genuine issue for trial, let alone that summary judgment in their favor is warranted. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Defendants Motion for Summary Judgement is GRANTED. Plaintiffs motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (shb)
|
|
Filing
64
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson re Stipulation for Protective Order 63 . See order for details. (shb)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 44 Defendants MOTION to Dismiss. Defendant Air Frances Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED, in part and DENIED, in part. Plaintiffs state law claims, and acc ompanying claims for non-compensatory and punitive damages, are dismissed, with prejudice. Plaintiffs claims against newly-named Doe defendantsare dismissed, with leave to amend. Should Plaintiffs seek to amend their Montreal Convention claims against Doe defendants, any such amended complaint shall be filed within fourteen days of the date of this Order. (shb)
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver. The Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiffs to show cause in writing no later than April 3, 2018 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to file a timely response to this Order may result in dismissal of the action. (dml)
|
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.
