Vazquez v. United States of America et al
Plaintiff: Damaris Manzanero Vazquez
Defendant: United States of America and National Steel and Shipbuilding Company
Case Number: 3:2015cv00180
Filed: January 27, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of California
Office: San Diego Office
County: San Diego
Presiding Judge: William V. Gallo
Presiding Judge: John A. Houston
Nature of Suit: Marine
Cause of Action: 46:741
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 27, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 273 ORDER Withdrawing Motions In-Limine. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motion to exclude expert witnesses from the courtroom while the other party's expert witness is testifying (Doc. No. 159 ) and Defendant's motion to exclude subsequent remedial measures (Doc. No. 164 ). The parties notified the court they have reached a settlement in this matter and are taking steps to finalize the settlement. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the motions are withdrawn. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 8/27/2020. (tcf)
August 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 271 ORDER granting 260 Joint Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 8/06/2020. (djk)
June 5, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 257 ORDER denying 254 Ex Parte Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 6/05/2020. (djk)
May 26, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 253 ORDER striking 249 Ex Parte Motion to Remove Non-Essential Personnel from ECF Service List. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 5/26/2020. (djk)
October 15, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 241 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c) and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 17.1 for approval of the entire settlement of this action, including the minor's claim, is transferred to Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo. (ECF No. 240 ) Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 10/15/2019. (tcf)
July 12, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 211 ORDER on Motions In Limine: (1) NASSCO's motion to exclude evidence of the contract (Doc. No. 160 ) is DENIED. (2) NASSCO's motion to exclude testimony of the United States' expert, Dr. Patrick Hudson (Doc. No. 161 ) is GRANTED IN PA RT AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED as to the first opinion and GRANTED as to the second and third opinions. (3) NASSCO's motion to preclude evidence or argument regarding legal duty (Doc. No. 162 ) DENIED. (4) NASSCO's motion to e xclude evidence of any alleged negligent act not listedin the Pretrial Order (Doc. No. 172 ) is DENIED without prejudice. (5) NASSCO's motion to exclude opinions and testimony of Plaintiff's expert Carl Beels (Doc. No. 166 ) is DENIED. (6) The hearing set for July 15, 2019 is VACATED. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 7/12/2019. (tcf)
September 24, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 147 ORDER denying 106 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Case Management Conference Order and for leave to file Fourth Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 9/24/2018. (jpp)
October 3, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 76 SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER regulating discovery and other pre-trial proceedings. Mandatory Settlement Conference set for 11/8/2017 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo. Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/17/2018 02:30 PM in Courtroom 13B before Judge John A. Houston. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 9/7/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 10/03/2017. (jpp)
March 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER after 56 Order Referring Motion, confirming Court's prior denial of Plaintiff's request to compel second vessel inspection. Signed by Judge William V. Gallo on March 21, 2017. (ajf)
March 6, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 56 ORDER Remanding Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Defendant to Provide an Opportunity for Another Inspection. It is Ordered: (1) Plaintiff's motion to compel is remanded to Judge Gallo to consider Plaintiff's new argument in determining whether Plaintiff's interest in inspecting the elevator platform a second time outweighs the burden to Defendant. (2) Plaintiff shall notify the Court of Judge Gallo's ruling and whether she renews her objection and motion to set aside based upon the ruling no more than seven (7) days after Judge Gallo issues his ruling. (ECF No. 47 ). Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 3/6/2017. Motions set before William V. Gallo.(rlu)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Vazquez v. United States of America et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Damaris Manzanero Vazquez
Represented By: Preston Warham Easley, Jr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: United States of America
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: National Steel and Shipbuilding Company
Represented By: Valerie Garcia Hong
Represented By: Andrew Nicholas Kohn
Represented By: Douglas A Pettit
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?