Naz, LLC v. Philips Healthcare
Plaintiff: Naz, LLC
Defendant: Philips Healthcare
Case Number: 2:2017cv02882
Filed: April 4, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Office: New Orleans Office
County: Jefferson
Presiding Judge: Martin L.C. Feldman
Presiding Judge: Karen Wells Roby
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
January 2, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 328 ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that Philips 23 Motion for Summary Judgment regarding consequential damages waiver is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Philips re-urging the motion if the jury finds that there is a contract incorporating Philips' standa rd Terms and Conditions of Sale. FURTHER ORDERED that Philips' 243 Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims regarding the MRI's third-floor installation is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Philips' 245 Motion for Summary Judgment on claims regrading 5 gauss line and surgery suite is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Philips' 231 Motion to Strike Tianliang Gu isDENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Philips' 233 Motion to Strike Thomas Read isDENIED. FURT HER ORDERED that Philips' 234 Motion to Strike William Dixon is GRANTED as to the legal conclusion that Philips was negligent, and otherwise DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Philips' 235 Motion to Strike Donald Marks isGRANTED. FURTHER OR DERED that Philips' 236 Motion to Strike John Theriot isDENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 261 Motion to Strike Jeff Englert is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 262 Motion to Strike Allen Ohlmeyer is DENIED. FU RTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 263 Motion to Strike Tobias Gilk is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 264 Motion to Strike Richard Rathe is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 265 Motion to Strike Jeffrey Charlet is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Philips' 239 Motion to Strike Bryan Bordeman is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 299 Motion to Strike Philips' reply memoranda is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Phillips' 286 Motion to Strike new expert reports produced by Plaintiffs is DENIED as to the survey and DENIED as moot as to the purchase agreement. FURTHER ORDERED that Philips' 238 Motion in Limine to exclude evidence regarding subsequent remedial measures is DENIED. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 1/2/19. (clc)
November 8, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 220 ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that Philips' 139 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding prescription of Plaintiffs' LPLA claim is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Philips' 160 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding prescript ion of Plaintiffs' redhibition claims is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Philips' 163 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding the preclusive effects of the application of the LPLA and Louisiana redhibition law is DENIED. FURTHER ORDER ED that Philips' 141 Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' jury demand is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's 156 Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 11/7/2018.(clc)
June 29, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 133 ORDER: ORDERED that 129 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support to their Motion to Quash the Subpoena to Philips Employee Randy McLain is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that 123 Motion to Quash the Subpoena Issued to Philips Employee Randy McLain is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that the subpoena seeks the personal information of Randy McLain or information beyond what is ordered by the Court. The motion is DENIED to the extent that Philips shall and is ordered to produce the documents stated herein no later than twenty-one (21) days from the signing of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (cml)
March 8, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 90 ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that the 51 Rule 12(c) motion is DENIED; and the 61 Rule 12(b)(6) motion is GRANTED in part (insofar as it seeks to dismiss punitive, exemplary and non-pecuniary damages) and DENIED in part (insofar as it seeks to dismiss claims for economic loss damages). Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 3/8/2018. (clc)
July 26, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER granting in part & denying in part 11 Motion for More Definite Statement as stated herein. FURTHER ORDERED that, w/in 7 days, consistent with this Order & Reasons, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1653, the plaintiff must file an amended complaint correcting its defective jurisdictional allegations. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 7/26/2017. (caa)
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 Louisiana Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Naz, LLC v. Philips Healthcare
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Naz, LLC
Represented By: Gerard J. Gaudet
Represented By: William Bernard Gaudet
Represented By: Marc J. Mandich
Represented By: John Love Norris, IV
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: Philips Healthcare
Represented By: Rodney J. Lacoste, Jr.
Represented By: Guy D. Perrier
Represented By: Curt Lucien Rome
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?