Fox et al v. Transam Leasing, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: |
Candace Fox, Anthony Gillespie and Charles Schreckenbach |
Defendant: |
Transam Leasing, Inc. and Transam Trucking, Inc. |
Case Number: |
2:2012cv02706 |
Filed: |
November 1, 2012 |
Court: |
US District Court for the District of Kansas |
Office: |
Kansas City Office |
County: |
XX US, Outside State |
Presiding Judge: |
Carlos Murguia |
Presiding Judge: |
Gerald L. Rushfelt |
Nature of Suit: |
Other Statutory Actions |
Cause of Action: |
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question |
Jury Demanded By: |
Both |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
October 3, 2018 |
Filing
237
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 236 Motion to Dismiss. The action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). All other pending motions, including Docs. 197, 207, 215, 225, 226, and 230 are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge John W. Broomes on 10/03/2018. (aa)
|
May 15, 2017 |
Filing
187
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 178 Motion for Summary Judgment. The court determines that the Independent Contractor Agreements under which the defendants previously required the plaintiffs and plaintiff class members to pay a satellite communication system fee of $15 per week constituted a forced purchase in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(i). Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 05/15/2017. (aa)
|
July 13, 2015 |
Filing
147
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 136 Motion for Interlocutory Appeal. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 7/13/15. (mm)
|
April 27, 2015 |
Filing
134
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability on Count III (Doc. 121) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) Motion to Stay Adjudication of Uncertified, Individual Claims Raised by Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 128) is granted. Accordingly, the court denies without prejudice TransAm's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 123). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties should contact the magistrate judge to set up a scheduling conference. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 4/27/15. (kao)
|
October 30, 2014 |
Filing
115
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding 108 Motion for Discovery. The Court orders Defendants to serve answers and responses to Plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests for production within ten days. Plaintiffs' request for fees and expenses is denied. See Memorandum and Order for additional information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 10/30/2014. (gc)
|
June 11, 2014 |
Filing
80
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 68 Motion to Certify Class. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 68) is granted as to Count III and denied as to Counts I and II. IT IS FURTH ER ORDERED that the court certifies a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) of the following: All persons, including entities, who operated under an Independent Contractor Agreement that included a satellite communications system usage fee with TransAm Trucking, Inc. between November 2, 2009, through the present. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs Candace Fox, Anthony Gillespie, and Charles Schreckenbach are designated as class representatives. Shaffer Lombardo Shurin, P.C., and Gregory Leyh, P.C. are designated as class counsel. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 6/11/14. (kao)
|
September 18, 2013 |
Filing
43
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 9/18/2013. (gc)
|
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 Kansas District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?