Bell et al v. Texaco, Inc. et al
Vernita Bell, K.A., Jestina Alsworth, P.F., S.D., Katie Colenburg, Thelma Sanders, Carl Ellis, John Scott, Mary Culbert, Betty Scott, James Scott, Bertha Franklin and Levander Davis |
Texaco, Inc., Chevron Corporation, Estate of W. Joe Brown, W. Joe Brown, Southwest Mississippi Mental Health Foundation, Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality and Doe Defendants 1-10 |
5:2009cv00192 |
November 12, 2009 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
Western Office |
Jefferson |
Keith Starrett |
John M. Roper |
Plaintiff |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 157 ORDER granting Defendant's 143 Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the Court's discovery orders. Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice. All other pending motions are denied as moot. A separate Judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be entered. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on June 15, 2011 (dsl) |
Filing 156 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant Texaco's 137 Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on June 13, 2011. (Cochran, Ronald) |
Filing 132 ORDER granting Defendant Texaco, Inc.'s 115 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order; finding as moot 115 Motion to Expedite; finding as moot 115 Motion for Status Conference; finding as moot Defendant Texaco Inc.'s 118 Supplemental Motion to Amend Scheduling Order; granting Plaintiffs' 127 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on April 22, 2011. (Cochran, Ronald) |
Filing 94 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 84 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 21, 2010 (dsl) |
Filing 69 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 63 Motion for Certificate of Appealability; and denying Plaintiffs' 64 Motion to Stay Case. It should be noted however, that the case continues to be stayed due to the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 5 . Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on July 28, 2010 (dsl) |
Filing 62 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 54 Renewed Motion for Reconsideration and Plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P 41(a)(2). Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on June 11, 2010 (dsl) |
Filing 53 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 48 Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Motion to Remand. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on April 13, 2010 (dsl) |
Filing 43 ORDER denying Motion to Remand 12 for the reasons set forth in this order and in the Court's previous order dated February 8, 2010, Dkt. #37. Further, Southwest Mississippi Mental Health Foundation dismissed from this action and all motions pending against the Foundation are dismissed as moot. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on February 22, 2010 (dsl) |
Filing 37 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 12 Motion to Remand to State Court; finding as moot 27 Motion to Dismiss filed by Southwest Mississippi Mental Health Foundation; and finding as moot 30 Motion to Strike filed by Plaintiffs. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on February 8, 2010 (dsl) |
Filing 10 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Honorable David C. Bramlette, III and Magistrate Judge John M. Roper recused. Case reassigned to District Judge Keith Starrett and Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker for all further proceedings Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 11/17/09 (PKM) |
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 Mississippi Southern 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.