Mountain View Hospital, L.L.C. v. Sahara, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Mountain View Hospital, L.L.C.
Defendant: Sahara, Inc., Davis Partnership, P.C. and Does 1-10
Case Number: 4:2007cv00464
Filed: October 26, 2007
Court: US District Court for the District of Idaho
Office: Pocatello - Eastern Office
County: Bonneville - Eastern
Presiding Judge: Mikel H. Williams
Nature of Suit: Contract: Recovery/Enforcement
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 7, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 462 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 405 Motion to Clarify; granting in part and denying in part 408 Motion to Clarify; granting in part and denying in part 426 Motion to Clarify; granting in part and denying in part 434 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)
December 16, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 436 ORDER on Motion to Compel denying 419 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)
November 16, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 409 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER, ( Jury Trial set for 5/3/2012 09:30 AM in Pocatello - District Courtroom before Judge B. Lynn Winmill., Telephonic Trial Readiness Conference set for 4/12/2012 01:30 PM in Boise Chambers before Judge B. Lynn Winmill.). Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks)
October 17, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 402 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 159 MOTION for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 299 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment; denying 298 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 169 MOTI ON for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 331 MOTION to Supplement; granting in part and denying in part 292 MOTION for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 352 MOTION to Strike; denying as moot 280 MOTION to Strike; denying 162 MOTION for Summ ary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 257 MOTION for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 225 MOTION for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 390 MOTION to Strike; granting 297 First MOTION for Summary Judgment; gr anting in part and denying in part 163 MOTION for Summary Judgment. All claims against Encompass are dismissed. The Court has reconsidered specific findings with respect to Motion 257 as reflected in this memorandum decision. The Court's fin ding in its initial Order 398 denying Davis's Motion for Summary Judgment 297 is vacated. On reconsideration, initiated by the Court, Davis's Motion for Summary Judgment 297 is granted. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)
September 30, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 398 ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS granting 159 Encompass's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 162 Ballard's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 163 Bingham's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting i n part and denying in part 169 E.K. Bailey's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 225 Sahara's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 257 Siemens' Motion for Summary Judgmen t; granting in part and denying in part 292 UTM's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 297 Davis's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 298 Ballard's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 299 Mountai n View's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 280 Encompass's Motion to Strike; denying as moot 390 Encompass's Motion to Strike; deeming as moot 331 Siemens' Motion to Supplement; denying as moot 352 Mountain View's Motion to Strike. All claims against Encompass are dismissed. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jlg)
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 Idaho District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Mountain View Hospital, L.L.C. v. Sahara, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mountain View Hospital, L.L.C.
Represented By: Craig G. Adamson
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: Sahara, Inc.
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: Davis Partnership, P.C.
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: Does 1-10
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?