Centimark Corporation v. Christofferson et al
| Centimark Corporation |
| Cockreil and Christofferson, L.L.C. and Philip J. Christofferson |
| 4:2011cv00720 |
| April 21, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - City |
| Charles A. Shaw |
| Other Personal Property Damage |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1132 |
| 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
95
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Philip J. Christofferson and Cockriel and Christofferson L.L.C.s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. [Doc. 78] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Philip J. Christofferson and Cockriel and C hristofferson L.L.C.s motion for leave to file in excess of page limitation is GRANTED. [Doc. 79] ( Response to Court due by 2/1/2013.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before February 1,2013, the parties shall inform the Court, in writing, as to whether they intend to proceed to trial on Philip J. Christofferson and Cockriel and Christofferson L.L.C.s counterclaim against CentiMark Corporation for unpaid attorneys fees. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 1/29/2013. (KSM) Modified on 1/29/2013 (KSM).
|
|
Filing
60
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Philip J. Christofferson and Cockreil and Christofferson, L.L.C.'s Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Report and Exclude Plaintiff's Expert from Testifying is DENIED as moot. [Doc. 36] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Philip J. Christofferson and Cockreil and Christofferson, L.L.C.'s Motion for Sanctions as to Plaintiff's Expert is DENIED. [Doc. 50]. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 6/6/2012. (NCL)
|
|
Filing
55
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Centimark Corporation's motion for extension of time to file a response to defendant's motion for sanctions is GRANTED. [Doc. 53]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff C entimark Corporation's response to defendant's motion for sanctions is STRICKEN. [Doc. 54]. Plaintiff shall file a response memorandum that is double spaced and otherwise conforms with the Local Rules on or before 10:00 a.m., May 23, 2012. (Response to Court due by 5/23/2012.) Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 5/22/2012. (NCL)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for the reasons stated herein, the Court will not consider the three documents plaintiff filed in opposition to defendants motion to disqualify counsel, Documents 23, 24, and 25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED tha t plaintiff is granted until October 21, 2011, to file a memorandum in opposition to defendants motion to disqualify counsel. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to comply fully and timely with this Order, the Court will proceed to consider defendants' motion to disqualify counsel without any opposition. Response to Court due by 10/21/2011. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 10/17/2011. (NCL)
|
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
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.
