POWELL et al v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
TAMMY POWELL and BOBBY POWELL |
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. |
1:2008cv01621 |
December 2, 2008 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
Motor Vehicle Office |
Fayette |
Tim A. Baker |
David Frank Hamilton |
Plaintiff |
Diversity |
28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 162 ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - For the reasons set forth Defendant's 92 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Ultimately, a jury may very well determine that Moon breached his duties. If that occurs, compensatory damages will be awarded accordingly. However, for the reasons set forth above, punitive damages are not appropriate under the circumstances. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/4/2011. (JD) |
Filing 118 ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS: The Court grants Plaintiffs' 82 motion to redepose Richard Knose on the condition that Plaintiffs pay for UPS's deposition DVD and transcript, and the reasonable attorney's fees for one of UPS's attor neys to attend the deposition. The Court grants in part Plaintiffs' 86 motion for protective order. The Court denies Plaintiffs' 89 motion for leave to file an amended complaint (see Order for details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 1/13/2011. (SWM) |
Filing 68 ORDER granting Deft UPS and Nonparty Moon's 59 Motion to Quash (see Order for details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 4/13/2010. (SWM) |
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.