Schaefer et al v. Universal Scaffolding & Equipment, LLC
| Matthew Schaefer and Cynthia Schaefer |
| Universal Scaffolding & Equipment, LLC |
| 3:2010cv00791 |
| October 12, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| East St. Louis Office |
| Randolph |
| Philip M. Frazier |
| G. Patrick Murphy |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| 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
308
ORDER denying 297 Motion for Reconsideration; granting 298 Motion for Leave to File. Defendant Dynegy must file the amended pleading by 9/20/17. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 9/13/2017. (dam)
|
|
Filing
283
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Quash Trial Subpoenas (Doc. 223 ) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants Motion for a Finding of Agency (Doc. 227 ), Motion for a Finding of Waiver (Doc. 219 ), and Motion for Judgm ent on the Pleadings (Doc. 200 ) are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants request on the measure of damages (Doc. 269 ) is DENIED. The measure of damages for Plaintiffs negligent spoliation claim is the amount of damages Plaintiffs would have been awarded if their claims against Universal were successful.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 4/18/17. (dam)
|
|
Filing
247
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 245 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 246 Motion for Reconsideration; dismissing as moot crossclaims against Dynegy and Universal 86 ;finding as moot 200 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; 201 Motion t o Adopt; 203 Motion in Limine; 204 Motion in Limine; 205 Motion in Limine; 208 Motion to Adopt; 209 Motion in Limine; 210 Motion for Order; 214 Motion in Limine; 216 Motion to Bar; 219 Motion for Order; 223 Motion for Protective Order; 225 Motion for Order; 240 Motion in Limine; 241 Motion to Strike ; 241 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 06/04/2015. (msd, )
|
|
Filing
199
ORDER granting 190 Defendant Dynegy's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count IV - Construction Negligence. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 1/23/15. (kos)
|
|
Filing
159
For the reasons articulated in the attached MEMORANDUM & ORDER, the undersigned STRIKES (Doc. 155 , Doc. 156 ) Plaintiffs' untimely responses to Universal's Daubert motions, rendering Universal's motion to strike (Do c. 157 ) MOOT. The Court further DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 115 ), Brand's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 122 ), and Dynegy's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. [1 23]). Universal's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 117 ) is GRANTED, so its Daubert motions (Doc. 118 , Doc. 119 ) are MOOT. Dynegy's crossclaim against Universal is SEVERED pursuant to Fe deral Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), and the Joint Motion to Continue the Trial Date (Doc. 153 ) is DENIED. The case remains set for jury trial on March 17, 2014. See attached for details. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 2/10/2014. (jls)
|
|
Filing
142
For the reasons explained in the attached ORDER, Defendant Brand Energy Services, LLC, shall remedy the defects in its jurisdictional memorandum at or before the close of business today, January 9, 2014. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 1/9/2014. (jls)
|
|
Filing
137
ORDER re: Jurisdictional Briefing, setting 1/3/2014 deadline. See attached for details. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 12/23/2013. (jls)
|
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 Illinois Southern 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.
