Case Number: 1:2009cv01411
Filed: November 12, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Labor: Other Office
Presiding Judge: David Frank Hamilton
Presiding Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:1331 Fed. Question

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
February 26, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 443 ORDER - Mr. Pautsch's Objections to Magistrate Judge Baker's January 30, 2013 Order, [dkt. 438 ], are OVERRULED. However, Mr. Pautsch's obligation to post a bond to stay execution continues to be STAYED pending further order. During that stay, and until further order, execution of the Amended Judgment as against Mr. Pautsch and the MPI Defendants' Verified Motion for Proceedings Supplemental, [dkt. 417 ], are also STAYED. The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge se t a hearing as soon as practicable on the issue of whether Mr. Pautsch can provide an alternate form of security that would adequately secure the full amount of the $517,156.20 Amended Judgment against him. At the hearing, the burden will be on Mr. Pautsch to demonstrate both an adequate alternate form of security as well as his inability to obtain a $517,156.20 bond. He should provide documentation of any claim that he is unable to do so. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/26/2013. (JKS)
December 7, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 404 ORDER - Mr. Pautsch's Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, [dkt. 390 ], is DENIED. Loparex's Motion to Vacate Order and Judgment and to Reconsider the MPI Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, [dkt. [392 ]], is also DENIED. The MPI Defendants' Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Correction to Judgment of Costs and Fees, [dkt. 395 ], is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED to the extent that the Court agrees that $28,946.67 in costs should have been included in the August 22, 2012 Judgment against Loparex, but DENIED to the extent that it requests nunc pro tunc treatment. An amended judgment will enter accordingly. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/7/2012. (JKS)
July 27, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 369 ORDER - The MPI Defendants' Motion for Fees, [dkt. 339], is GRANTED IN PART. It is granted as to Loparex and to Mr. Pautsch but denied in all other respects. The MPI Defendants' Bill of Costs, [dkt. 338], is also GRANTED. The MPI Defendants must submit a revised judgment for the Court's approval within seven days, together with any supplemental fee petition for defending its fees here. Any such supplemental petition must be served on Mr. Pautsch. Loparex's Bill of Costs, [dkt. 345], is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/27/2012. (TMA)
May 31, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 297 ORDER - Because neither judicial administrative considerations nor equitable considerations favor a piecemeal appeal, and because there several just reasons for delay, the Court DENIES Loparex's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Pursuant to Rul e 54(b) of the FRCP, [dkt. 282]. Because the Court has rejected Loparex's frivolity argument, Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Surreply, [dkt. 293], is DENIED AS MOOT. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/31/2011. (LBK)
May 25, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 295 ORDER re: 279 Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees. For the reasons detailed herein, Defendants are awarded $18,150.50 in attorney's fees in connection with obtaining the documents from Minnesota and $1,680 in fees in connection with the resumed deposition of Dr. Podsiadly, for a total of $19,830.50. Because Loparex has made no argument that being required to pay the award before final judgment would subject it to irreparable harm, the Court ORDERS Loparex to pay the fee award to Defendants within fourteen days. See Mulay Plastics, Inc. v. Grand T. W. R. Co., 742 F.2d 369, 370 (7th Cir. 1984) (dismissing appeal from fees imposed as discovery sanction and noting that "an order to pay money as a sancti on for abuse of discovery usually does not...inflict irreparable harm on the party...ordered to pay" and that a refund will be required on appeal if the sanction turns out to have been erroneous). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/25/2011. (LBK)
May 16, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 288 ORDER denying Pltf's 271 Motion to Compel (see Order for details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 5/16/2011. (SWM)
March 25, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 276 ORDER re: 143 Defendants' Motion for Sanctions. Defendants' Motion for Discover Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is granted to the extent that Defendants may recover from Loparex the attorney's fees and expenses t hey incurred in obtaining the documents ultimately ordered produced in the January 20, 2010 order from the Minnesota court. The documents that were ordered produced there should have been produced in response to Defendants' discovery requests i n this action. The motion is also granted to the extent that the Defendants may recover their fees and expenses incurred during the resumption of Dr. Podsiadly's deposition, on January 7, 2010. Absent a motion filed with the Court to terminate the deposition-which Loparex never filed-Loparex was objectively unjustified in prematurely terminating the deposition. In all other respects, Defendants' motion is denied. If the parties are unable to agree on the appropriate amount of fees a nd expenses authorized by this Order, Defendants must file their fee petition within fourteen days. Any objections will be due fourteen days thereafter, to which Defendants may respond in an additional seven days. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/25/2011. (LBK)
February 17, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 240 ORDER. For the reasons discussed herein, Loparex' motions to dismiss the Counterclaims by Messers. Odders and Kerber, [dkt. 124, 126], are both DENIED. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/17/2011. (LBK)
July 20, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 181 ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL: Before the Court are two motions to file under seal. Regarding Plaintiff's motion to seal Docket Nos. 172 and 173 [Docket No. 174], there appears to be no basis for wholesale sealing of these briefs. Plaintiff's 174 motion is therefore denied. Any party interested in sealing limited portions of these filings shall have fourteen days in which to provide supplemental briefing explaining in specific detail what good cause purportedly exists for doing so. Re garding the Defendants' motion to seal certain exhibits and their reply brief in support of their motion for sanctions [Docket No. 168], the motion is granted to the extent that Exhibit A, which clearly contains proprietary information, [Docket No. 163] shall remain under seal. Based upon the briefing, however, good cause has not been established to keep Exhibits V, W,and J [Docket Nos. 163, 165] or the reply brief [Docket No. 166] under seal. In fact, the MPI Defendants assert that they "do not agree that the information contained in these documents is confidential." [Docket No. 168 at 3.] Therefore, any party interested in sealing Exhibits V, W,or J or the reply brief shall have fourteen days to establish good cause why they should be sealed or which specific portions should be redacted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker (SWM).
April 1, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 101 ORDER granting deft Kerber's 80 Motion for Leave to File Answer and Counterclaim; granting deft Odders' 81 Motion for Leave to File Answer and Counterclaim (Redacted); granting Odders' 82 Sealed Motion for Leave to Answer and Cou nterclaim. The Clerk shall immediately docket Mr. Kerber's amended answer and counterclaim, and supporting materials [dkt. 80-1 to -7]. The Clerk shall immediately docket Mr. Odders' amended answer and counterclaim, together with its supp orting materials, [dkt. 82 and dkt. 81-2 through -5] under seal and seal dkt 81-2 through -5. But Loparex (or Defendant MPI Release Technologies, LLC, if it so chooses) shall SHOW CAUSE, if any,why Mr. Odders' amended answer and counterclaim should not be unsealed (see Order for other details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/31/2010. (SWM)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: LOPAREX, LLC v. MPI RELEASE, LLC et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?