Allen v. 3M Company et al
Janet Allen |
3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc. |
0:2017cv02738 |
July 11, 2017 |
US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
DMN Office |
XX US, Outside State |
Joan N. Ericksen |
Franklin L. Noel |
Personal Injury: Health Care |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 7 ORDER: (1) Defendants 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Pretrial Order No. 14 (Motion) [Dkt. No. 1030 ] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as below. (2) The Motion is DENIED as moot as to 17-cv-2755 (Morris v. 3M Co., et al.) and 17-cv-3038 (Schapansky v. 3M Co., et al.). (3) The Motion is DENIED without prejudice to renew as to 17-cv-998 (Gruetzmacher v. 3M Co., et al.), 17-cv-1017 (Maria Garcia v. 3M Co., et al.) and 17-cv-2881 (P rince v. 3M Company). (4) The following cases are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE because the Motion is GRANTED as to 17-cv-343 (Grooms v. 3M Co., et al.), 17-cv-640 (Johnson v. 3M Co., et al.), 17-cv-711 (Gilbert Garcia v. 3M Co., et al.), 17-cv-1082 (Pet rakis v. 3M Co., et al.), 17-cv-1879 (Sellers v. 3M Co., et al.), 17-cv-2738 (Allen v. 3M Co., et al.), 17-cv-2747 (Graves v. 3M Co., et al.), 17-cv-2763 (Maxheimer v. 3M Co., et al.) and 17-cv-2892 (Saylor v. 3M Co., et al.). (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on January 19, 2018. (CBC) |
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 Minnesota 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.