PRO IMAGE INSTALLERS, INC. v DILLON, ET AL
| PRO IMAGE INSTALLERS INC |
| BARBARA R DILLON, DAVE OSBORNE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING INC, NATIONWIDE FIXTURE INSTALLATIONS INC, SOUTHWEST FIXTURE INSTALLERS INC, AMERICAN INSTALLATION COMPANIES LLC, DAVID T OSBORNE and DYNAMIC RESOURCES INC |
| 3:2008cv00273 |
| June 25, 2008 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida |
| Pensacola Office |
| Santa Rosa |
| MILES DAVIS |
| M CASEY RODGERS |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| None |
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
178
CONSENT FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of PRO IMAGE INSTALLERS INC against BARBARA R DILLON. Signed by District Judge M CASEY RODGERS on 2/23/10. (lcu)
|
|
Filing
177
ORDER granting 176 Joint Motion to Vacate Dismissal and for Entry of Consent Judgment. The clerk shall enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Dillon consistent with the parties' Mediation Settlement Agreement. Signed by District Judge M CASEY RODGERS on 2/22/10. (lcu)
|
|
Filing
170
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Defendant Evan Giniger's Motion to Dismiss Counts V, VII and IX of the Second Amended Verified Complaint of Plaintiff Pro Image Installers, Inc. under Local Rule 7.1 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) (doc. 107) is DENIED as MOOT. In accordance with the parties' notice of settlement 162 , Counts V, VII and IX of the second amended complaint are dismissed with prejudice as to defendants Evan Giniger and Dynamic Resources, Inc. only, with each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. Signed by District Judge M CASEY RODGERS on 9/28/09. (lcu)
|
|
Filing
164
ORDER Adopting 159 Report and Recommendation. Defendants' 98 Motion to Dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, etc., is Denied as moot. In accordance with the parties' notice of settlement 157 , Courts IV, VI and VIII of the second amended complaint are dismissed with prejudice as to defendants DAVID T OSBORNE, DAVE OSBORNE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING INC, AMERICAN INSTALLATION COMPANIES LLC, NATIONWIDE FIXTURE INSTALLATIONS INC and SOUTHWEST FIXTURE INSTALLERS INC, only, with each side to bear its own costs. Signed by District Judge M CASEY RODGERS on August 18, 2009. (cbj)
|
|
Filing
159
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. ORDERED: The court's recommendation entered on June 15, 2009 156 is hereby VACATED. RECOMMENDED: Defendants' motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 98 be DENIED as MOOT. That in accordance with the parties' notice of settlement 157 , Counts IV, VI and VIII of the second amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice as to defendant s David T. Osborne, Dave Osborne Construction Contracting, Inc., American Installation Companies, LLC, Nationwide Fixture Installations, Inc. andSouthwest Fixture Installers, Inc. only, with each side to bear its own costs. (Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 8/12/2009). Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE MILES DAVIS on 7/15/09. (lcu)
|
|
Filing
152
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that Defendant's Dillon's Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's complaint and Motion to Preclude Application of Florida law to plaintiffs claims 112 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge M CASEY RODGERS on 5/28/09. (lcu)
|
|
Filing
145
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE MILES DAVIS on 5/5/09. (lcu)
|
|
Filing
141
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that Defendant's Dillon's Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's complaint and Motion to Preclude Application of Florida law to plaintiff's claims 112 be DENIED. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE MILES DAVIS on 4/28/09. Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 5/26/2009 (lcu)
|
|
Filing
105
ORDER (Of Deficiency) - re BARBARA R. DILLON'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE APPLICATION OF FLORIDA LAW TO PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS..." - - The document shall be returned by the clerk without filing. May resubmit after noted deficiency is corrected. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE MILES DAVIS on February 23, 2009.(cc: Dillon w/ret'd doc.) (cbj)
|
|
Filing
93
ORDER. The Court has received notification 89 that Defendant, Barbara Dillon, is now proceeding pro se in this case. Therefore, pursuant to district policy and administrative order, this case is referred to the magistrate judge to conduct all further pre trial proceedings as are necessary and to enter a report and recommendation on the disposition of the matter as appropriate. Any deadlines, hearings, or trials currently set in the case may be cancelled or continued as part of that review process. Signed by District Judge M CASEY RODGERS on 2/10/09. (lcu)
|
|
Filing
83
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 23 MOTION to Dismiss (granting to dismiss pursuant to Rule 8 and denied as moot without prejudice to its refiling to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction). Denying as moot without prejudice to their refiling 35 MOTION to Dismiss; 37 MOTION to Dismiss; and 54 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff shall have twenty days to file its Second Amended Complaint, and responses to this complaint are due twenty days after it is filed. Signed by District Judge M CASEY RODGERS on 1/15/09.Second Amended Complaint due by 2/4/09 and Answers due by 2/24/2009 (lcu)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Northern 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.
