Re-Borne, Inc. v. Panther II Transportation Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Kentucky Eastern District Re-Borne, Inc. v. Panther II Transportation Inc.

Re-Borne, Inc. v. Panther II Transportation Inc.

Plaintiff:	Re-Borne, Inc.
Defendant:	Panther II Transportation Inc.
Case Number:	3:2017cv00023
Filed:	February 23, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Office:	Frankfort Office
County:	Shelby
Presiding Judge:	Gregory F. VanTatenhove
Nature of Suit:	Other Contract
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
March 26, 2019	Filing 57 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Motion to Dismiss 48 is DENIED; 2. Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint 53 is GRANTED; 3. Clerk SHALL FILE Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [R. 53 -1] as Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint; 4. Because t he Second Amended Complaint merely consolidates Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant and Third-Party Defendant into one pleading, the Defendant and Third- Party Defendant need not file an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. The Court will treat their Answers to the Complaint and Amended Complaint, respectively, as Answers to the claims stated in the Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 3/26/2019.(CBD)cc: COR
March 28, 2018	Filing 9 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Dft's Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 through 3 of Plf's Complaint 5 is GRANTED. An Order for Meeting and Report will be entered shortly. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 3/28/2018.(AKR)cc: COR

Date Filed

Document Text

March 26, 2019

Filing 57 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Motion to Dismiss 48 is DENIED; 2. Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint 53 is GRANTED; 3. Clerk SHALL FILE Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [R. 53 -1] as Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint; 4. Because t he Second Amended Complaint merely consolidates Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant and Third-Party Defendant into one pleading, the Defendant and Third- Party Defendant need not file an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. The Court will treat their Answers to the Complaint and Amended Complaint, respectively, as Answers to the claims stated in the Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 3/26/2019.(CBD)cc: COR

March 28, 2018

Filing 9 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Dft's Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 through 3 of Plf's Complaint 5 is GRANTED. An Order for Meeting and Report will be entered shortly. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 3/28/2018.(AKR)cc: COR

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 Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Re-Borne, Inc. v. Panther II Transportation Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Re-Borne, Inc.
Represented By:	Elisabeth S. Gray
Represented By:	Elizabeth Golden Powell
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: Panther II Transportation Inc.
Represented By:	Patrick B. Healy
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?