hibu Inc. v. Peck
Plaintiff: hibu Inc.
Defendant: Chad Peck
Case Number: 6:2016cv01055
Filed: February 26, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Kansas
Office: Wichita Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Teresa J. James
Presiding Judge: J. Thomas Marten
Nature of Suit: Other Contract
Cause of Action: 28:1332
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
September 12, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 449 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 447 Motion to Approve Supersedeas Bond. The Court will stay execution of the May 1, 2018 award pending the results of Peck's appeal, conditioned upon Peck's posting of the surety bond in the amount of $ 1,435,684.00 in the form presented to the Court in Dkt. 447-1 with the Clerk of Court. The stay shall remain in effect until the mandate is issued. If Peck's appeal is denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. Having found the bond suf ficient and having stayed execution of the judgment pending appeal, Hibu Inc.'s Application for Writ of Execution (Dkt. 441 ) is DENIED. Peck's Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 446 ) and Peck's Objections to Application for Writ of Garnishment (Dkt. 443 ) are rendered moot by this ruling. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 9/12/2018. (mam)
January 11, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 358 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 312 MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO PLAINTIFF'S EXPERTS; granting in part, and taken under advisement until trial 313 OMNIBUS MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO LIABILITY ISSUES; denying without prejudice 314 FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO OTHER EMPLOYEE AGREEMENTS OF PECK AND THE SIX SALES REPRESENTATIVES; granting 315 SECOND MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO HIBU INC.'S PREVIOUS MERGERS, NAME CHANGES, OR FILINGS WITH THE ST ATE OF KANSAS; denying without prejudice 316 THIRD MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ANY ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AS TO ANY CURRENT OR FORMER HIBU EMPLOYEE; granting 317 FOURTH MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCES TO HEARSAY STATEMENT S BY PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS ABOUT HIBU; denying without prejudice 318 FIFTH MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE MENTION OF RELIANCE ON ADVICE OF COUNSEL AS A DEFENSE TO LIABILITY; granting 319 SIXTH MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCES TO HIBU INC.'S IN-HOUSE ATTORNEYS; granting 320 SEVENTH MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE MENTION OF MEDIATION, SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS, OR OFFERS OF COMPROMISE BETWEEN HIBU AND PECK. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 1/11/2018. (mam)
December 28, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 337 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 284 MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS AND TESTIMONY OF RODNEY SOWARDS. Sowards's opinions concerning plaintiff's expectation that the six sale representatives would remain employed with plaintiff and severance are inadmissible. Sowards's remaining opinions are admissible at trial. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 12/28/2017. (mam)
December 12, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 306 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 300 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S UNTIMELY FILING; granting 302 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OUT OF TIME HIS OPPOSITION TO HIBU'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS AND TESTIMONY OF RODNEY SOWARDS. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 12/12/2017. (mam)
November 15, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 288 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying in part and granting in part 255 Motion for Summary Judgment (see order for details). Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 11/15/2017. (mam)
November 6, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 281 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 272 hibu Inc.'s Motion to Disqualify Latham & Watkins LLP; granting 274 Motion for Attorney Joseph Serino, Jr. to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 275 Motion for Attorney Leah Friedman to Appear Pro Hac Vice; [276 ] Motion for Attorney Gregory S. Mortenson to Appear Pro Hac Vice pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 83.5.4 for purposes of this case only. Unless already registered, pro hac vice counsel should register for electronic notification pursuant to the court's Administrative Procedures by completing a CM/ECF Electronic Filing Registration Form at http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 11/6/2017. (mam)
October 5, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 271 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 253 PLAINTIFF HIBU INC.'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL. Plaintiff's motion to disqualify Eric Leon and Kuangyan Huang (Dkt. 253) is granted. Plaintiff's motion to disqualify Mr. NathanTaylor and the law firm of Latham & Watkins LLP is denied without prejudice. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 10/5/2017. (mam)
July 25, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 249 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying Defendant Chad Peck's Motion for Sanctions and to Compel hibu to Produce a Corporate Representative for Deposition (ECF No. 241) and MINUTE ENTRY for motion hearing held on 7/24/2017 before Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James. (Court Reporter Kim Greiner.) (ts) Modified on 7/26/2017 to show that this is a Memorandum and Order (aa).
July 13, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 239 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying without prejudice 224 User-Friendly's Motion to Quash subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 7/13/2017. (byk)
June 30, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 220 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 198 Plaintiff hibu Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 6/30/2017. (ts)
June 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 202 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 176 Defendant's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 6/8/2017. (ts)
April 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 166 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 158 Plaintiff hibu Inc.'s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. The motion is granted insofar as it seeks to compel Dex Media, Inc. to produce a witness or witnesses who are fully prepar ed to testify about information known or reasonably available to Dex concerning Topics 6 and 7, with Dex Media Inc. to bear the costs of such deposition, including travel expenses for Plaintiff's counsel. The motion is denied insofar as Plaintiff seeks sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 4/21/2017. (ts)
March 13, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 147 ORDER. Following the Court's in camera inspection of documents designated by Dex as Attorney's Eyes Only, the Court orders only those Bates numbered documents which consist of text message transcripts shall be de-designated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 3/13/2017. (ts)
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

Search for this case: hibu Inc. v. Peck
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: hibu Inc.
Represented By: Patrick L. Kenney
Represented By: John Mark Mattox, II
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: Chad Peck
Represented By: AnnRene Sarah Braun
Represented By: Michael L. Matula
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?