Carlberg et al v. Guam Industrial Services dba Guam Shipyard et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|September 30, 2017
Order denying Plaintiffs' 162 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Defendants' 172 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Defendants' 166 Motion to Strike Jury Demand Pursuant to Fed R. Civ P. 39(a)(2). Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 9/30/2017. (fad, )
|March 7, 2017
Order granting 126 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 3/7/2017. (fad, )
|December 30, 2016
Order granting 101 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' gross negligence and negligence per se claims. Plaintiffs were at-will employees, and Defendants owed them no duty of care in terminating their employment under Guam law. Addit ionally, Plaintiffs' negligence per se claim is improper because it seeks to impermissibly use the WARN Act to recover common-law remedies in circumvention of Congress's intent. Finally, Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages is STRICKEN because their negligence claims have been dismissed, and the WARN Act does not permit punitive damages. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 12/30/2016. (fad, )
|March 25, 2016
Order denying 16 Motion to Dismiss; denying 35 Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Memorandum Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1); granting Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint in accordance with this order. The Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than fourteen days from the date of this order. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 3/25/2016. (fad, )
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 Guam District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?