Hackethal v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.
| Larry Hackethal |
| Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. |
| 4:2015cv01398 |
| September 10, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - City |
| E. Richard Webber |
| Personal Injury- Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
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
41
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion for a Protective Order is GRANTED, in part, [ECF No. 23] and the parties shall proceed with 30(b)(6) depositions of corporate representatives. Topics will include, conc erning, among other things, corporate structure and chain of command of the QA and PAC-Man departments. The Court does not foreclose Plaintiffs ability to take more depositions, but will withhold consideration of any arguments Plaintiff wishes to make for further discovery until after these initial depositions are completed in October. The Court shall issue an amended case management order after these depositions are completed upon request of the parties. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on August 23, 2016. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for extension of time is GRANTED, in part, and Plaintiffs shall have seven days to file a response to Defendants Motion for Protective Order [ECF No. 23 ]. In the event Plaint iff and Defendant reach an impasse in resolving their dispute on the Motion for Protective Order, the extension shall not be granted beyond July 19th, 2016 without further order of the Court. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 6/29/16. (EAB)
|
|
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Harbor Freight Inc.'s Motion to Strike Allegations that it failed to recall or retrofit is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN Part. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff&# 039;s allegations Harbor Freight violated a duty by failing to recall or retrofit the product at issue, specifically 36 (f), shall be stricken from the Plaintiffs petition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's allegations Harbor Freight is subject to punitive damages on the basis of a failure to recall or retrofit the product at issue, specifically 83, and 86 shall be DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 2/22/16. (EAB)
|
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: Hackethal v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Larry Hackethal | |
| Represented By: | Joshua D. Margolis |
| Represented By: | Todd I. Muchnick |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Lawrence S. Hall |
| Represented By: | Kevin P. Krueger |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.
