CRAIG & LANDRETH, INC. et al v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC.
Plaintiff: JAMES H. SMITH, JR. and LARRY CRAIG
Defendant: MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC.
Dealer Code No. 34514: CRAIG & LANDRETH, INC.
Case Number: 4:2007cv00134
Filed: October 5, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: O Office
County: Clark
Presiding Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Presiding Judge: William G. Hussmann
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: O
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 27, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 227 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE - 184 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Individual Damages is GRANTED. See order for details. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/27/2011. (LBT)
October 29, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 178 ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - 162 Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. See Entry for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 10/29/2010. (LBT)
October 7, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 172 ORDER granting in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment - 105 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with regard to Counts II, III, IV, V and VI of Plaintiff's Complaint and DENIED with regard to Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 10/7/2010. (LBT)
March 12, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 148 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE - Having carefully considered the parties' arguments, we hereby DENY 123 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike 121 Reply in Support of 105 Motion for Summary Judgment, but accept Plaintiffs' Surreply Brief, filed concurrently with the motion. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/12/2010. (LBT) Modified on 3/15/2010 to create docket entry relationship to Doc #105 (JLM).
February 9, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 142 ORDER denying 129 Fifth Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Request for Sanctions. The court takes under advisement whether sanctions lesser than default - or any sanctions at all - should be assessed until a time in which it is able to more completely ascertain what data was, in fact, necessary to calculate the allocation formula. See Order for particulars. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 2/9/2010. (LBT)
January 6, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 132 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' RULE 56(F) REQUEST AND CONTINUING TRIAL SETTING - Plaintiffs' Rule 56(f) Request (contained in 116 Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are permitted 30 days from the da te of this entry to complete the requested discovery relating to Count I of its Complaint. Plaintiffs are permitted an additional 15 days within which to file their supplemental response, which submission shall not exceed 20 pages in length. Defend ant is permitted 20 days thereafter to file a supplemental reply, also not to exceed 20 pages in length. The 1/26/2010 final pretrial conference and 2/8/2010 trial dates are CONTINUED. New dates will be established, if necessary, following the court's ruling on the pending motion. See Order for particulars. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/6/2010.(LBT)
July 27, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 125 ORDER ON FOURTH MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES - Plaintiffs' Fourth Motion to Compel Discovery Responses 113 is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant is to produce all electronically stored information responsive to plaintiffs&# 039; Second Request for Document Production in its "native format." Furthermore, defendant is to produce an individual who can assist plaintiffs in searching defendant's relevant databases. Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 7/27/2009. (JLM)
January 12, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 90 ORDER granting 39 Motion for Protective Order for Noticed Deposition of James O'Sullivan. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 1/12/09. (LBT)
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: CRAIG & LANDRETH, INC. et al v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: JAMES H. SMITH, JR.
Represented By: Fred E. Fischer, III
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: LARRY CRAIG
Represented By: Fred E. Fischer, III
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 ]
Dealer code no. 34514: CRAIG & LANDRETH, INC.
Represented By: Fred E. Fischer, III
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 ]
Defendant: MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC.
Represented By: William Jay Hunter
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?