Limbright et al v. Hofmeister et al
| James H Limbright and Henry J Limbright |
| George Hofmeister, Kay Ramsay Hofmeister, Nelson Clemmens and John Doe |
| 5:2009cv00107 |
| April 1, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Contract: Recovery/Enforcement Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Karl S. Forester |
| None |
| Diversity |
| 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Default |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
266
OPINION AND ORDER: (A) Plas' original 254 Motion to Appoint Receiver is DENIED AS MOOT. (B) Plas' 255 Corrected Motion to Appoint Receiver is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on November 15, 2012. (AWD) cc: COR
|
|
Filing
264
OPINION AND ORDER: (1) The Children's 258 MOTION for Leave to Deposit Funds and accrued interest into court is GRANTED. (2) Clerk shall cause the deposited monies to be invested in the Court Registry Investment System. (3) Pursuant to the d irective of the Judicial Conference of the US, the Clerk shall deduct a Registry Fee equal to 10% of the interest earned for the first five years, 7.5% for the next five years and 5% for the next five years and no less than 2% the reafter. (4) Clerk shall deduct the registry fee prior to the disbursement of funds without further orders of this Court. (5) Plas shall be responsible for any fees associated with maintaining the court deposit. (6) Upon receipt of notice of the depo sit, the Court will enter an order that the Children have fully satisfied certain judgments to Plas and are relieved from any further obligation for those judgments, but are not relieved from any obligation re the Judgment entered by this Court on 10/18/2012. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on November 2, 2012. (AWD) cc: COR,F
|
|
Filing
261
OPINION AND ORDER: Pla's 251 Request for fees and expenses is GRANTED IN PART and that judgment shall be entered in favor of Plas in the sum of $512,539.28, plus expenses of $15,928.32 and against all Dfts with exception of the Hofm eister Children, Scott R. Hofmeister, Jamie S. Hofmeister, and Megan Hofmeister personally. Nonetheless, the Florida Condo owned by the Children shall remain subject to the judgment. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on October 18, 2012. (AWD) cc: COR
|
|
Filing
247
OPINION AND ORDER: (1) pltfs' 229 MOTION to award atty fees & nontaxable expenses is GRANTED IN PART; (2) award of fees does not apply to Hofmeister Children personally; (3) pltf to submit detailed records of fees & expenses claiming in order that Court can determine reasonableness OOB 4/5/2012; (4) dft may file obj to amounts OOB 4/12/2012 at which time matter will be submitted to Court. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on 03/22/2012.(RJD)cc: COR Modified on 3/22/2012 (RJD).
|
|
Filing
246
OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs' 227 response regarding calculation of amounts due under the Kentucky Judgment, treated as a motion to clarify, and Plaintiffs' additional 233 motion to alter or amend judgment are GRANTED. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on March 14, 2012. (AWD) cc: COR
|
|
Filing
244
OPINION & ORDER: It is ORDERED that Supplementary Dfts' 230 MOTION to alter, amend, reconsider, vacate and set aside the Court's November 14, 2011 223 Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on February 28, 2012.(AWD) cc: COR
|
|
Filing
222
OPINION AND ORDER: (A) Plaintiffs' 180 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART, but is DENIED IN PART with respect to Plaintiffs' claims for double recovery, fees and punitive damages. (B) Dfts' 181 Motion for Summary Judgm ent is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Plaintiffs' claims for double recovery, fees and punitive damages; all other aspects of Dfts' motion are DENIED. (C) A Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against all Dfts will be entered contemporaneo usly with this Opinion and Order. (D) Dfts' 189 request for oral argument is DENIED as moot. (E) Dfts' 221 Motion regarding attendance at the November 17, 2011, pretrial conference is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on November 14, 2011. (AWD) cc: COR
|
|
Filing
149
OPINION AND ORDER: (1) Plaintiffs' 140 Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (2) The proposed changes in the tendered Second Amended, except punitive damages, are GRANTED. (3) The proposal to add claims for punitive damages is DENIED. (4) Plaintiffs shall file a Second Amended Complaint in conformity with this Order NLT 6/15/2011. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on June 13, 2011. (AWD) cc: COR
|
|
Filing
84
OPINION AND ORDER: (A) The 62 Motion of Supplementary Dft Megan G. Hofmeister to Partially Dismiss the First Amended Complaint is DENIED. (B) The 76 Motion of Supplementary Dft Jamie S. Hofmeister to Partially Dismiss the First Amended Complaint is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on August 25, 2010. (AWD) cc: COR
|
|
Filing
58
OPINION & ORDER: The Supplementary Defendants' 54 MOTION for Partial Dismissal of First Amended Complaint is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on April 27, 2010. (AWD) cc: COR
|
|
Filing
46
OPINION AND ORDER: It is ordered that Dfts' 40 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The motion is granted to the limited extent that Plas seek relief with respect to assets own by the Children but the dismissal is w/o prejudice to Plas' stated intention to move to file an amended complaint. Any proposed amended complaint shall be tendered with a motion on or before 2/15/2010. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on 2/1/2010. (SCD)cc: COR
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
