Kahue v. Pacific Environmental Corporation et al
| Cedric K. Kahue |
| Pacific Environmental Corporation, John Does 1-20, Mary Does 1-20, Doe Corporations 1-20, Doe Partnerships 1-20, Doe Associates 1-20, Doe Governmental Agencies 1-20, Other Entities 1-20, M/V Penco 1, M/V Penco 2 and Doe Vessels 1-20 |
| 1:2010cv00001 |
| January 1, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| Hawaii Office |
| Honolulu |
| KEVIN S.C. CHANG |
| J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT |
| Marine |
| 46:688 Jones Act |
| Defendant |
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
270
ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR'S REQUEST TO POSTPONE PARTICIPATION AT TRIAL UNTIL AN AWARD HAS BEEN MADE AND THE EXTENT OF INTERVENOR'S LIEN MAY BE DETERMINED: "IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The intervenor may be excused from participation at t rial, although it will be bound by the Court's rulings on matters that arise prior to an award, and during any part of the trial from which the intervenor has requested the Court excuse its presence. 2. The intervenor's agreement to be bou nd without objection to the Court's rulings does not apply if the intervenor is called upon to produce a witness to testify during the liability phase of trial (which the intervenor has agreed to do if the plaintiff and defendants are unable to stipulate to the amount of the lien), at which point the intervenor may fully represent its witness during the witness's testimony. 3. The intervenor's agreement to be bound also does not apply to limit or enlarge any rights that arise afte r an award has been made." Signed by District JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on March 29, 2012. (bbb, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
|
|
Filing
238
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 219 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/CLARIFICATION. Signed by District JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on January 30, 2012. (bbb, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electro nic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
|
|
Filing
218
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' 105 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS' 109 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION: "On the basis of the foregoing, PENCO's M otion for Summary Judgment, filed on July 19, 2011 is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Count II claim for unseaworthiness and DENIED in all other respects. PENCO's Motion for Summary Judgmen t on Complaint in Intervention, filed on August 3, 2011, is HEREBY DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED." Signed by District JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on November 29, 2011. (bbb, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants regi stered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
|
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 Hawaii 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.
