Pilkington North America, Inc. vs Smith
| Pilkington North America, Inc. |
| Jazz Auto Repair and Replacement, LLC and Leonard Smith |
| 3:2011cv00176 |
| March 22, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana |
| Baton Rouge Office |
| Docia L Dalby |
| Brian A. Jackson |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| None |
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
58
RULING AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 55 Motion for Summary Judgment on Attorney's Fees and Costs. The Court ASSESSES COSTS against the Defendant in the amount of $241,788.00. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 11/21/2014. (NLT)
|
|
Filing
53
RULING AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Pilkington North America, Inc.'s ("Pilkington") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 40) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that against Defendant Leonard Smith and his company, Jazz Auto R epair and Replacement, LLC, d/b/a/ Jazz Auto Glass for the full and true amount of $1,196,079.57, plus interest at the current judicial interest rate of 0.14% per annum from the date of entry of this Order until paid, see 28 U.S.C. § 1 961(a). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that JUDGMENT is also ENTERED herein against Defendant Leonard Smith and his company, Jazz Auto Repair and Replacement, LLC, d/b/a Jazz Auto Glass for all costs incurred by Plaintiff in these proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney'S Fees is DENIED, without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have the option Court to conduct an analysis on an award for attorney's fees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion and Incorporated Memorandum to Return Motion for Summary Judgment to Docket (Doc. 52) is DENIED as moot.Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 3/25/2014. (PJH)
|
|
Filing
39
ORDER granting 32 Motion to Compel with reasonable costs not to exceed $250. Responses to discovery are due April 26, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Docia L Dalby on April 11, 2012. (SR)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER denying 24 Motion to Quash as to defendants' banking records between November, 2007, and February, 2011; granting 24 Motion for Protective Order to the extent that the parties are ordered to submit a joint protective order which addresses all confidential and/or proprietary information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Docia L Dalby on March 2, 2012. (SR)
|
|
Filing
20
RULING denying 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 12 MOTION for Leave to File Attach Exhibit A to Defendant's 9 Motion to Dismiss as moot; denying 15 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 7/13/2011. (CMM)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER: plaintiff shall amend the complaint within 5 days of this date to provide the Court with facts sufficient to meet his burden of establishing the citizenship of of Jazz Auto Repair and Replacement, LLC for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Should plaintiff's counsel fail to do so, this matter will be dismissed without further notice.. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 06/28/11. (PAH)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff amend the complaint within 10 days of this date to provide the court with additional facts establishing the citizenship of of Jazz Auto Repair and Replacement, LLC for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 05/23/11. (PAH)
|
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 Middle 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.
