R. et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
| 1:2007cv00171 |
| November 27, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| Cape Girardeau Office |
| Lewis M. Blanton |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Wrongful Death |
| Plaintiff |
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
80
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company, 66 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff G. R., 62 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expe rt Witnesses filed by Defendant Stoddard County Cotton Company, 67 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Without Prejudice filed by Plaintiff G. R. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 67) be and it is granted. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the instant cause of action be dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions be denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lewis M. Blanton on 10/6/09. (CSG)
|
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 Missouri Eastern 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
| Search for this case: R. et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
