PETERBILT OF INDIANA, INC. v. UTILITY TRAILERS OF INDIANAPOLIS, INC. et al
| PETERBILT OF INDIANA, INC. |
| UTILITY TRAILERS OF INDIANAPOLIS, INC. and HAROLD RIDDLE |
| 1:2012cv00769 |
| June 5, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Denise K. LaRue |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of 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
79
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - The Court ORDERS Peterbilt to SHOW CAUSE by June 19, 2013, why its breach of contract claim should not be dismissed and final judgment entered on its claim for specific performance. Failure to respond by the Court's deadline will be deemed consent to enter judgment accordingly. ***SEE ORDER*** Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/12/2013.(JKS)
|
|
Filing
39
MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson - On November 1, 2012, the Court held oral argument on Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff Utility Trailer of Indianapolis, Inc. and Harold Riddle's (collectively, "UTI") Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim. [Dkt. 19 .] The parties were represented by counsel. Accordingly, the Court DENIED UTI's motion to dismiss. [Dkt. 19 .] Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson. (Court Reporter Jean Knepley.)(JKS)
|
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.
