MIMMS ET AL. v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
Plaintiff: ANTHONY MIMMS
Defendant: CVS PHARMACY, INC.
Case Number: 1:2015cv00970
Filed: June 19, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Mark J. Dinsmore
Presiding Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Nature of Suit: Assault Libel & Slander
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 28, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 280 ENTRY ON PARTIES' OBJECTIONS TO THE VIDEO TRIAL DEPOSITION OF CLINT THOMAS - On March 24, 2017, the parties filed designations and objections to the video trial deposition of Clint Thomas. (Filing No. 270 .) Plaintiff Anthony Mimms ("Dr. M imms") objected to six portions of the video deposition and Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. ("CVS") objected to one portion. Accordingly, the sustained portions of the deposition should be stricken from the video. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/28/2017.(JLS)
March 22, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 263 ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE STATEMENTS ALLEGED BY PLAINITIFF'S WITNESS BETSY WINTERS - For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS CVS's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Statements Alleged by P laintiff's Witness BW. (Filing No. 240 ). Dr. Mimms failure to include evidence as to Winters' testimony in his Complaint and summary judgment pleadings is fatal to this claim. In addition, when viewing the facts in light most favorable to Dr. Mimms, the statement "something about a license issue" does not amount to a communication with a defamatory imputation and Dr. Mimms has not presented sufficient evidence of special damages to establish a defamation per quod claim. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/22/2017. (JLS)
February 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 219 ORDER ON PARTIES' MOTIONS IN LIMINE - For the reasons stated above, the parties' respective Motions in Limine (Filing No. 158 and Filing No. 175 ) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. An order in limine is not a final, appealabl e order. Denial of the motions in limine in this Order does not prevent either party from raising an objection at trial. During the course of the trial, if either party believes that evidence being offered is inadmissible or irrelevant, counsel may approach the bench and request a hearing outside the presence of the jury. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/27/2017. (JLS)
February 24, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 213 ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS - For the aforementioned reasons, the Court GRANTS CVS's Motion for Leave to Take Videotaped Trial Deposition (Filing No. 168 ), DENIES as moot CVS's Motion to Amend Final Witness List (Filing No. 172 ), and GRANTS Dr. Mimms' Motion to Take Deposition (Filing No. 195 . (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/24/2017. (JLS)
February 23, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 211 ENTRY ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION - For the aforementioned reasons, CVS's Request for Summary Ruling (Filing No. 157 ) is GRANTED. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part CVS's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Filing No. [ 150]). The Court vacates its prior order and finds that Dr. Mimms has not proven actual malice regarding the statements made to Cynthia Miller, William Miller, David Seeman, and Jerame Smith. Accordingly, CVS's Motion for Summary Judgment on Dr. Mimms' defamation claim as it relates to Jerame Smith, Mr. Seeman, and Mr. and Mrs. Miller is GRANTED, and Dr. Mimms' Motion for summary judgment on these claims is DENIED. In addition, the Court clarifies that qualified privilege does not apply to either CVS's pharmacy technicians or pharmacists; accordingly, CVS's Motion for Reconsideration on the issue of qualified privilege is DENIED. (See Entry.). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/23/2017. (JLS)
January 3, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 143 ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS - For the reasons stated above, Dr. Mimms' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Filing No. 71 ), and CVS's Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 74 ), are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Dr. Mimms' M otion to Strike ( Filing No. 58 ) is DENIED. CVS's Motion for Leave to Amend its Witness and Exhibit Lists (Filing No. 127 ) is GRANTED and CVS's Motion to Supplement Summary Judgment Record (Filing No. 130 ) is DENIED. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/3/2017. (JLS)
October 22, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by CVS PHARMACY, INC., 21 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/22/2015.(JLS)
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: MIMMS ET AL. v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: CVS PHARMACY, INC.
Represented By: Jonathan W. Garlough
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 ]
Plaintiff: ANTHONY MIMMS
Represented By: Jason D. May
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.


Why Is My Information Online?