Western Convenience Stores, Inc. et al v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.
Plaintiff: Western Convenience Stores, Inc. and Western Truck One, LLC
Defendant: Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.
Case Number: 1:2011cv01611
Filed: June 20, 2011
Court: US District Court for the District of Colorado
Office: Denver Office
County: Arapahoe
Presiding Judge: Marcia S. Krieger
Presiding Judge: Craig B. Shaffer
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 0013
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
March 27, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 313 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 226 Motion for Fees and Costs by Interested Non-Party Dillon Companies, Inc. By Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 03/27/2014. (cbslc1)
March 17, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 305 OPINION AND ORDER: Dillon Companies' Motion to Restrict Access 292 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth herein. Dillon's Motion for Hearing 293 is DENIED AS MOOT. Dillon's Motion to Supplement 298 is GRANTED. By Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 3/17/14.(msklc2, )
February 13, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 299 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART WESTERN'S MOTION TO DISCLOSE DISCOVERY MATERIALS: Western's 269 MOTION for Order to Disclose Certain "Secret" Discovery Materials in Advance of March 17, 2014 Trial filed by Western Convenience Stores, Inc. is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART on the terms set forth herein. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 2/13/14. (msksec, )
September 5, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 251 Opinion and Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Motions for Summary Judgment. Suncor's Motion for Summary Judgment on WCS' statutory claims (Robinson-Patman Act and C.R.S. § 6-2-108) (# 185 ) is DENIED, and those claims will pr oceed to trial. Suncor's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Plaintiffs' common-law claims (# 181 ) is GRANTED, and Suncor is entitled to judgment on the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract . There being no viable claims asserted on behalfof Plaintiff Western Truck One, LLC, the caption is DEEMED AMENDED to removereference to that party. Suncor's Motion for Summary Judgment on its own counterclaims (# 182 ) is DENIED, subject to th e Court having made certain findings of established fact pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g). The various motions to restrict access (# 188 , 194 , 209 - 211 , 218 , 232 , 249 ) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and the filers of each of the subject documents shall file redacted versions, on the terms set forth herein, within 30 days of the date of this Order. The documents currently under restricted access shall retain those restrictions. Dillon's Objections (# 107 , 187 ) are OV ERRULED and the Magistrate Judge's Orders (# 95 , 179 ) are AFFIRMED. Because there are claims proceeding to trial, the parties shall promptly prepare a Proposed Pretrial Order in conformance with the requirements of the Trial Preparation Order (# 29 ) and shall jointly contact chambers to schedule a Pretrial Conference. By Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 9/5/2013.(klyon, ) Modified on 9/5/2013 to remove restriction level as order was restricted in error (klyon, ).
July 22, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 248 COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Motion Hearing held on 7/22/2013. 246 Motion to Restrict Access is GRANTED. The court advises the parties that it will not issue a ruling from the bench but will take 226 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs under advisement. FTR: Courtroom A402 - C. Covington. (ccovi)
January 28, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 179 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Motion Hearing held on 1/28/2013. The court DENIES 153 Motion for Order. The court shall treat this motion like a motion for reconsideration. The court will not chan ge the designation nor will it require, based on the showing set forth in this motion, that Dillon or Suncor change those designations. The court informs the parties that it feels that the phrase information "derived from" is too broad. The court DENIES AS MOOT 159 Motion to Quash. FTR: Robin Mason. (cbscd, )
October 17, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 140 SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 10/17/12. (cbssec)
August 17, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 95 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Motion Hearing held on 8/17/2012. The court DENIES 57 Motion to Quash. The court GRANTS 90 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify. The court advises the parties that since the subject of filing dispositive motions is still up in the air, the parties shall be required to either filed dispositive motions on or before February 8, 2013 or file a joint status report indicating that no one intends to file any dispositive motions (which would be asking Judge Krieger to set this matter for a final pretrial conference). FTR: Robin Mason. (cbscd, )
June 25, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 84 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Motion Hearing held on 6/25/2012. The court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES in PART 52 Motion to Compel. The court GRANTS 55 Motion for Leave to Restrict. The court DENIES 59 Motion for Order. The court GRANTS 65 Motion for Leave to Restrict. The court GRANTS 79 Motion for Leave to Restrict. (FTR: Robin Mason) (cbscd, )
March 12, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 49 PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 3/12/12. (cbssec)
November 21, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 29 TRIAL PREPARATION ORDER - CIVIL by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 11/21/11. (msksec, )
June 28, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS: Any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and deposition s from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60 days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will be destroyed. by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 6/28/11. (mskcd)
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 Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Western Convenience Stores, Inc. et al v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Western Convenience Stores, Inc.
Represented By: Kathleen E. Craigmile
Represented By: Kenneth Ronald Bennington
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 ]
Plaintiff: Western Truck One, LLC
Represented By: Kenneth Ronald Bennington
Represented By: Kathleen E. Craigmile
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: Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.
Represented By: Michael E. Korenblat
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?