RIVERS v. ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT COMPANY
ANGELO PECELLO RIVERS |
ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT COMPANY |
5:2008cv00061 |
March 5, 2008 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Florida |
Panama City Office |
Jackson |
RICHARD SMOAK |
ELIZABETH M TIMOTHY |
Civil Rights: Jobs |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 84 ORDER adopting 81 Report and Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part 63 Motion to Enforce Judgment; granting 45 Motion for Summary Judgment.The clerk is directed to enter judgment in the amount of $8,087.29 in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. The clerk is directed to enter summary judgment in favor of Defendant Asplundh Tree Expert Company. Signed by JUDGE RICHARD SMOAK on 9/23/09. (jem) |
Filing 81 ORDER - 1) Dft ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT COMPANY's 58 MOTION to Strike Portions of Pla's 55 Affidavit is granted in part and denied in part: The motion is granted to the extent that the following italicized paragraphs or p ortions of paragraphs of the affidavit, as identified, are stricken: Paragraphs 17, 18, 25, 37, 50, 52, 53, 74, 76, 78, and 80; the motion is denied in all other respects. 2) Dft is entitled to be paid the sum of $6,308.19 by Pla for fees Dft in curred in filing its Third motion to compel and two motions for sanctions. 3) The clerk is directed to seal the exhibits attached to Docket Entry 56 (pp. 7-63). **REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1) That Dft's 63 MOTION for enforcement of sanctio ns be granted in part and denied in part. Granted, to the extent Pla shall pay the amount of $1,779.10 in sanctions previously assessed as well as the additional amount of $6,308.19 in new sanctions ordered above, for a total of $8,087 .29 due to Dft ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT COMPANY. The motion should be denied in all other respects. 2) Dft's 45 MOTION for summary judgment be granted. 3) That Judgment be entered in favor of Dft ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT COMPANY. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH M TIMOTHY on 8/24/2009. **(R&R flag set) - Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 9/21/2009. (laj) |
Filing 43 ORDER - 1) GRANTING Dft's 27 and 37 Motions for Sanctions. 2) On or before 12/15/2008, Dft shall submit documentation of fees and expenses incurred in bringing the Motions for Sanctions and attending Pltf's first sche duled deposition. Within (10) days of receipt of Dft's documentation, but no later than 12/27/08, Pltf may, but is not required to, file a notice outlining any objections to the reasonableness of the amounts claimed by Dft. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH M TIMOTHY on 12/3/2008. (laj) |
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 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
Search for this case: RIVERS v. ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT COMPANY | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: ANGELO PECELLO RIVERS | |
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: ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT COMPANY | |
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.