DUGDALE COMMUNICATIONS INC. v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC. et al
| DUGDALE COMMUNICATIONS INC. |
| ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., ALCATEL USA MARKETING, INC. and ALCATEL INTERNETWORKING, INC. |
| 1:2009cv00960 |
| August 4, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Marion |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Larry J. McKinney |
| Plaintiff |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Fraud |
| 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
300
ORDER on Dugdale's Motion to Reconsider Summary Judgment Order Regarding Damages. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART Dugdales Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Order on Alcatels Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability to the extent that the Court clarifies its previous order regarding damages available on Dugdales promissory estoppel claim, but otherwise DENIES Dugdales request for relief. 276 Motion for Reconsideration (see Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/1/2011. (JKS) Modified on 8/1/2011 (JKS).
|
|
Filing
225
ORDER denying 197 Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Dugdales Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Order on Alcatels Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability. (SEE ORDER FOR MORE DETAILS.)Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/12/2011. (MRI)
|
|
Filing
196
ORDER ON ALCATEL'S PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DAMAGES - For the reasons detailed herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Alcatel's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Damages. [Dkt. 79.] Alcatel's motion is granted to the extent that Dugdale cannot recover lost profits or lost opportunity costs on its remaining claims as a matter of law; Dugdale cannot recover prejudgment interest for lost profits or lost opportunity costs as a matter of law; and Dugdal e cannot recover punitive damages for its promissory estoppel, fraud under the BPPA, breach of contract, implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or negligence claims as a matter of law. Alcatel's motion is denied to the extent that Dugd ale can recover punitive damages for fraud under the VARA if it can prove a fraud claim independent of its breach of contract claim. Any punitive damages recoverable on that claim (along with any other damages for the defective products claims) are c apped by the contractual limitations of liability contained in the VARA and may be subsumed by any recovery of actual damages. Pursuant to the unambiguous language in the BPPA and the VARA, which Dugdale does not dispute, Dugdale's damages for breach of contract, negligence, and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (under the BPPA) are limited to the purchase price of the products that Dugdale can show to be defective. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/7/2011. (LBK)
|
|
Filing
195
ORDER ON ALCATEL'S PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY. For the reasons detailed herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Alcatel's Partial Motion from Summary Judgment on Liability. [Dkt. 83.] Alcatel's reque st for summary judgment on Dugdale's claims for fraud and constructive fraud is granted to the extent those claims are based on allegations that Alcatel represented it would subcontract annual system maintenance for the Advocate System to Dugdale. Alcatel's request for summary judgment on Dugdale's claim for promissory estoppel is denied. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/12/2011. (LBK)
|
|
Filing
175
ORDER ON G3 PARTNERS, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - For the reasons detailed herein, the Court cannot find as a matter of law that G3 did not assume Dugdale's liabilities related to this lawsuit. Therefore, the Court DENIES G3's Motion for Summary Judgment. [Dkt. 75.] Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/22/2011. (LBK)
|
|
Filing
153
ORDER OVERRULING ALCATEL'S OBJECTION TO DENIAL OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER. For the reasons detailed herein, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Baker's ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, Alcatel's objection to the denial of its motion for leave to amend its answer is OVERRULED. [Dkt. 149.] Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/23/2011. c/m. (LBK)
|
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.
