Cusack v. Bendpak, Inc. et al
| Corey Cusack |
| Bendpak, Inc., Advance Auto Parts, Inc. and General Parts, Inc. |
| 4:2017cv00003 |
| January 4, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Idaho |
| Pocatello - Eastern Office |
| Bannock - Eastern |
| B. Lynn Winmill |
| Personal Injury- Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
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
120
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 1. Cusacks Motions in Limine (Dkt. 92 ) are GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART as outlined above. 2. BendPaks Motions in Limine (Dkt. 94 ) are GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART as outlined a bove. 3. BendPaks Motion for Reconsider Re: Secondary Safety Bracket (Dkt. 99 ) is DENIED. 4. BendPaks Motion for Reconsider Re: Joshua Yanes (Dkt. 100 ) is DENIED. 5. Cusacks Motion to Strike (Dkt. 111 ) is GRANTED. BendPaks Amended Answer (Dkt. 95 ) is stricken from the record. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
|
|
Filing
89
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 1. Cusacks Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Joshua Yanes (Dkt. 68 ) is GRANTED. 2. BendPaks Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Scott Kimbrough (Dkt. 69 ) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PA RT as outlined above. 3. BendPaks Motion to Exclude Certain Portions of Tyler Bowles Testimony (Dkt. 70 ) is DENIED. 4. Cusacks Motion to Strike Exhibit F (Dkt. 75 ) is GRANTED. 5. BendPaks Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Hugh Selznick (Dkt. 71 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
|
|
Filing
88
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 1. Defendant Bendpaks Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 66 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
|
|
Filing
58
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant Bendpaks Motion in Limine (Dkt. 29 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as outlined above. Cusack will not be allowed to introduce evidence of Bendpaks addition of the secondary safety b racket for purposes of negligence, defect etc., but will be able to introduce it under a failure to warn theory. 2. Cusacks Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (Dkt. 32 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as outlined above. The Court will not allo w amendment in order to add a claim for punitive damages at this time. The Court will allow Cusack to remove all defendants except Bendpak from the case caption and factual allegations of the Complaint. Plaintiff has fourteen days to file an appropri ate Amended Complaint. 3. Cusacks Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 37 ) is GRANTED. While the Court will allow evidence of the phantom driver/operatorsactions, if otherwise admissible, only Cusack and Bendpak can be liable inthis case and o nly their names will be included on the jury verdict form.4. Bendpaks Motion to Strike (Dkt. 52 ) has been withdrawn and is deemedMOOT. Dkt. 56 . Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
|
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 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.
