McMillan, Jr. v. Lewis-Goetz and Company, Inc. et al
David E. McMillan, Jr. |
Lewis-Goetz and Company, Inc., Valley Rubber & Gasket Company, Inc. and Flow International Corporation |
2:2014cv01359 |
June 4, 2014 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
Sacramento Office |
Sacramento |
Lawrence K. Karlton |
Kendall J. Newman |
Employment |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 65 ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 08/07/17 ORDERING that the 43 Motion to Compel is GRANTED and the 49 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Unless Plaintiff files a notice with this Court within 14 days indicating he will not be offering expert testimony in support of his claims for emotional distress, Plaintiff shall submit to a mental examination conducted by Ronald H. Roberts, Ph.D., at a date and time to be agreed upon by the parties. Such examination shall take plac e within 30 days, unless the parties submit a joint stipulation within that period agreeing to another time and date within 90 days. This examination shall take place at 2000 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 512, San Francisco, CA 94109, unless the parties su bmit a joint stipulation agreeing to another location. The examination of Plaintiff by Dr. Roberts will be substantially identical in scope and duration to the one described in the 43 second paragraph of Section V of the Company's opening brief. The 28 Amended Scheduling Order is AMENDED to allow the Company to conduct the above-described mental examination. Furthermore, it is AMENDED to provide the Company with 20 days after the date of Dr. Roberts's examination of Plaintiff to serve a rebuttal expert report. (Benson, A.) |
Filing 63 ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 05/13/16 ORDERING that 55 defendants' Ex Parte Application to Amend the Scheduling Order is GRANTED; the 24 28 Scheduling Order is MODIFIED to reflect that the 04/21/16 Dispositive Moti on date was a filing deadline; the Court submits defendants' 49 Motion for Summary Judgment without oral argument. The Court notes that 43 defendants Motion to Compel a Mental Examination and to Modify the Scheduling Order is still under consideration by the Court and will be addressed in a combined order with defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Benson, A) |
Filing 42 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 02/17/16 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 41 Motion to Compel. (Jackson, T) |
Filing 38 ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/13/2015 DISMISSING Defendant Flow International Corporation with prejudice; ORDERING the parties to bear their own costs and fees; ORDERING that the Court retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the Settlement Agreement between the plaintiff and Defendant Flow International Corporation. (Michel, G.) |
Filing 35 STIPULATION and ORDER 33 regarding Good Faith Settlement signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/3/2015. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the settlement between plaintiff David E. McMillan, Jr. and defendant Flow International Corporation, identifie d in paragraph one of Stipulation is "in good faith" and satisfies requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure §877.6 and factors set forth in Tech-Built, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 37 Cal.3d 488 and its progeny . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all past, present, and future claims by any other party, or any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor, including non-parties to this action, for any claims of equitable comparative contribution or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault, are dismissed with prejudice and forever barred. (Marciel, M) |
Filing 26 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/30/15. (Manzer, C) |
Filing 15 STIPULATION and ORDER re punitive damages signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/13/14. (Kaminski, H) |
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 Eastern 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.