U S RAIL CORPORATION et al v. STURCH et al
| U S RAIL CORPORATION and U S RAILCORP |
| WILLIAM B. STURCH, NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY, JOHN T. RUSK, KEVIN HOLDING and RAIL SERVE, INC. |
| 1:2008cv00585 |
| May 2, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Adams |
| William T. Lawrence |
| Richard L. Young |
| Plaintiff |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Other Contract |
| Plaintiff |
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
174
ENTRY ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: For the reasons set forth above, summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of each Defendant with regard to all of the Plaintiffs' claims. Defendant Sturch's counterclaim against US Rail is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 2/4/2010. (DWH)
|
|
Filing
166
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - Motion to Enforce 9/28/09 Order (Dkt. 138) is DENIED. Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 142) is DENIED. Motion to Reopen Discovery and Postpone Determination of Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (f) (Dkt. 143) is DENIED. Motions to Strike Gabriel Hall Affidavit (Dkt. 154, 155, 159) are GRANTED and Request for Oral Argument on the Matter is DENIED. Motion for Order Finding Plaintiffs in Contempt of Court (Dkt. 156) is DENIED. Motions to Strike the Plaintiffs' Response as Untimely (Dkt. 161, 162) are DENIED. (See Order for details.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 12/30/2009. (TMA) Modified on 12/31/2009 (TMA).
|
|
Filing
74
ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS: For the reasons set forth above, Sturchs partial motion to dismiss 42 is GRANTED and the National Starch Defendants motion to dismiss 37 is GRANTED with regard to the defamation claim only. The defamation claim against t he National Starch Defendants and Sturch is dismissed without prejudice; however, any motion to amend the complaint to reinstate that claim by pleading with more specificity must be filed within ten days of the date of this Entry and th e dismissal will convert to one with prejudice in the absence of such a motion by that date. The National Starch Defendants motion to dismiss is DENIED in all other respects. Also for the reasons set forth above, the motion for more definite stateme nt 39 is GRANTED. The Plaintiffs shall file a more definite statement that sets forth the basis for its breach of contract claim within ten days of the date of this Entry. The National Starch Defendants answer to the amended complaint shall be filed within ten days of the date the more definite statement is filed or, if a timely motion to amend is filed by the Plaintiffs, within ten days of the Courts ruling on that motion **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 3/5/2009.(DWH)
|
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 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.
