Payton v. Fike

Payton v. Fike

Plaintiff:	Nicholas A Payton
Defendant:	Aaron Fike
Case Number:	1:2009cv00222
Filed:	August 10, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
Office:	Fort Wayne Office
County:	De Kalb
Presiding Judge:	James T Moody
Presiding Judge:	Roger B Cosbey
Nature of Suit:	Plaintiff
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
October 15, 2010	Filing 53 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 37 MOTION in Limine by Plaintiff Nicholas A Payton; 38 MOTION in Limine by Defendant Aaron Fike; 44 MOTION (Supplemental) in Limine by Plaintiff Nicholas A Payton. It is ORDERED that counse l, those acting on behalf of the parties, and anywitnesses shall not refer to the matters excluded pursuant to this Order, eitherdirectly or indirectly, during voir dire, opening statements, interrogation of witnesses, objection, arguments, closing s tatements, or otherwise, without first obtaining permission of the Court outside the presence or hearing of the jury. Counsel are further ORDERED to warn and caution each and every one of their witnesses to strictly follow these instructions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 10/15/10. (cer)
August 24, 2010	Filing 30 OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Aaron Fike; DENYING AS MOOT 26 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 23 Brief in Opposition by Defendant Aaron Fike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 8/24/10. (cer)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 15, 2010

Filing 53 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 37 MOTION in Limine by Plaintiff Nicholas A Payton; 38 MOTION in Limine by Defendant Aaron Fike; 44 MOTION (Supplemental) in Limine by Plaintiff Nicholas A Payton. It is ORDERED that counse l, those acting on behalf of the parties, and anywitnesses shall not refer to the matters excluded pursuant to this Order, eitherdirectly or indirectly, during voir dire, opening statements, interrogation of witnesses, objection, arguments, closing s tatements, or otherwise, without first obtaining permission of the Court outside the presence or hearing of the jury. Counsel are further ORDERED to warn and caution each and every one of their witnesses to strictly follow these instructions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 10/15/10. (cer)

August 24, 2010

Filing 30 OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Aaron Fike; DENYING AS MOOT 26 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 23 Brief in Opposition by Defendant Aaron Fike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 8/24/10. (cer)

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 Indiana Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Payton v. Fike
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Nicholas A Payton
Represented By:	Ilene M Smith
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: Aaron Fike
Represented By:	Codie J Ross
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?