ISOVOLTA INC. v. PROTRANS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
| ISOVOLTA INC. |
| PROTRANS INTERNATIONAL, INC. |
| 1:2008cv01319 |
| October 1, 2008 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Contract: Other Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Sarah Evans Barker |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Plaintiff |
| Diversity |
| 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract |
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
326
ORDER on Isovolta's 308 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs - The Court GRANTS IN PART Isovolta's Motion for Fees and Costs, dkt. 308 , and ORDERS ProTrans to pay Isovolta $235,646.01 in attorney's fees and $24,350.98 in costs. These amounts will be included in the Final Judgment issued this date. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/14/2011. (JKS)
|
|
Filing
314
ORDER denying 313 Tyco Fire Products, LP's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment as to Tyco. (See Order) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/21/2011. (TMA)
|
|
Filing
288
ORDER granting 280 Protrans' Motion for Reconsideration. See Order. If ProTrans chooses to present evidence of Firecheck's subsequent remedial measures, however, Isovolta will be allowed to cross-examine ProTrans' witnesses regarding the apparent failure to demand that the sprinklers be replaced before the incident. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/19/2011. (LBK)
|
|
Filing
217
ORDER granting 164 Defendant Tyco's Motion for Summary Judgment. Isovolta shall take nothing by way of its Second Amended Complaint on its claims against Tyco. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/14/2011.(LBK)
|
|
Filing
205
ORDER ON ISOVOLTA'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING TYCO'S DUTY OF CARE. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DENIES Isovolta's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Tyco's Duty of Care. [Dkt. 146.] See Order. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/19/2011. (LBK)
|
|
Filing
204
ORDER ON ISOVOLTA AND PROTRANS' CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Presently before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment between Plaintiff Isovolta Inc. and Defendant ProTrans International, Inc. [Dkts. 167, 180.] For the reasons detailed herein, ProTrans' motion for summary judgment and Isovolta's motion for summary judgment are both DENIED. While the Court points out by way of example various issues of material fact that will be left for a jury to decide, additional issues of material fact may exist between ProTrans and Isovolta that are not addressed by the parties in their briefing or by the Court in this Order. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/13/2011. (LBK)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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
| Search for this case: ISOVOLTA INC. v. PROTRANS INTERNATIONAL, INC. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: ISOVOLTA INC. | |
| Represented By: | John Mathews Stuckey |
| 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: PROTRANS INTERNATIONAL, 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 ] |
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.
