Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Tobergte et al
Plaintiff: Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Defendant: Kevin Tobergte and Andrew . Hall
Case Number: 5:2018cv00207
Filed: April 5, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Office: Lexington Office
County: Scott
Presiding Judge: Karen K. Caldwell
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 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
March 13, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 257 OPINION & ORDER: Norfolk Southern Railway Company's 239 Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in alternative, Motion for a Limited New Trial is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 03/13/2023. (DC) cc: COR
March 11, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 233 ORDER & OPINION: (1) GRANTING IN PART & DENYING IN PART Hall & Tobergte's 121 JOINT MOTION to Dismiss &/or Strike Count II & MOTION for Costs; granting the motion to extent that it asks the court to strike pla's 1st Amended Complaint ; denying the motion to extent it asks the court to dismiss pla's 1st Amended Complaint; motion for sanctions is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (2) pla's 117 First amended Complaint is STRICKEN; (3) GRANTING IN PART & DENYING IN PART pla� 39;s 124 MOTION to Dismiss & MOTION to Strike & MOTION for Costs; granting motion to extent that it asks the court to strike dfts' answer to pla's 1st Amended Complaint; denying the motion to extent it asks the court to dismiss dfts' ; answers; the motion for sanctions is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (4) dft Tobergte's 119 Answer to pla's 1st Amended Complaint & Counterclaim & dft Hall's 122 Answer to pla's 1st Amended Complaint & Counterclaim & jury demand are STRICKEN. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 3/11/22.(KJR)cc: COR
March 10, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 232 OPINION AND ORDER: Count three of Dft Hall's counterclaim (DE 23 at p.14) is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 3/10/2022.(SLH)cc: COR
February 23, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 202 OPINION & ORDER: 1) Court shall reserve ruling on the parties' objections to exhibits and witnesses. The parties may make contemporaneous objections and the Court will resolve those objections with the benefit of the context of trial. 2) The parties' 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 152 and 171 Motions in Limine are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 02/23/2022. (MDC) cc: COR
February 4, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 114 ORDER AND OPINION: Court ORDERS as follows: 1) Pla Norfolk Southern Railway Company's 78 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANT IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Court GRANTS the motion as to Dfts's PTC-related FELA counterclaims, training- and supervision-related FELA counterclaims, dispatch and signal system-related FELA counterclaims, and LIA counterclaims. Those counterclaims are DISMISSED from this action. Court DENIES the motion as to Dft's FELA counterclaim s related to the response of Train M74's crew; 2) Pla's 103 MOTION for Leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Court GRANTS the motion to the extent that the proposed first amended complaint o mits claims for the removal of petroleum from the collision site under Count I and indemnity claims for third-party adjacent landowners and customers under Count II. Court DENIES the motion to the extent that the proposed first amended complain t adds a new indemnity claim for settlements paid to third-party owners of damaged rail equipment; and 3) Pla SHALL file a first amended complaint in conformance with this Order and Opinion. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 02/04/2021. (MDC) cc: COR
April 18, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 75 OPINION AND ORDER: Dft Hall's 52 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. Recognizing that Defendant Hall may have suffered certain costs as a result of Plaintiff's confusing and inconsistent conduct, the Court will take under consideration any appropriate motion for sanctions, should one be filed. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 4/18/2020. (STC)cc: COR
December 10, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER & OPINION: For reasons stated in the Order & Opinion, the Court denies Andrew Hall's 8 MOTION to Dismiss for failure to state a claim & Kevin Tobergate's 11 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 12/10/2018.(JJ)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: Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Tobergte et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Represented By: Robert B. Cetrulo
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: Kevin Tobergte
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: Andrew . Hall
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?