C.C. v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: C.C.
Defendant: Suzuki Manufacturing of America Corporation
Case Number: 4:2016cv01271
Filed: August 4, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: St. Louis Office
County: Within US but Outside District
Presiding Judge: Carol E. Jackson
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury- Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Both
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 26, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 257 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Suzuki Manufacturing of America Corporation and Suzuki Motor Corporation's Motion to Use Exemplar ATV at Trial [ECF No. 252] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on September 26, 2018. (MCB)(Certified copy given to Court Security this date.)
September 25, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 255 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Suzuki Manufacturing of America Corporation and Suzuki Motor Corporation's Motion to Reconsider the Court's Order Excluding Evidence or Argument About Warnings [ECF No. 251] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on September 25, 2018. (MCB)
September 20, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 250 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Suzuki Manufacturing of America Corporation and Suzuki Motor Corporation's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Other Unrelated Accidents, Claims and Lawsuits [ECF No. 163] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Suzuki ATV Beyond the 2013 Model Year at Issue [ECF No. 164] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. IT IS FURTHER O RDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Change to the 3M-4799 Glue after the Manufacture of the Subject ATV [ECF No. 165] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Abs ence of Any Claims History with the Use of 3M-4799 [ECF No. 166] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Rule 42(B) Motion to Bifurcate Punitive Damages [ECF No. 167] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motion in Limine to Exclude Mention of Punitive Damages Claim in Opening Statement [ECF No. 168] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence that Defendants Should Have Conducted a Recall [ECF No. 169] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to Discovery Issues, Disputes Hearings, or Orders [ECF No. 170] is held in abeyance. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of M edical Expense Charges Other than Actual Costs [ECF No. 171] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Argument or Comment Regarding the Absence of Corporate Representative at Trial [ECF No. 172] is GRANTE D, in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Reference to Future Lost Medical Expenses or to Claims of Lost Past Earnings, Lost Wages, or Lost Future Earnings Capacity [ECF No. 173] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER O RDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Reference to Defendants Size, Wealth or Financial Condition [ECF No. 174] is GRANTED, in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Reference that Te nds to Promote Japanese Bias [ECF No. 175] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Inflammatory and Graphic Photographs [ECF No. 177] is held in abeyance. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff and His Lay Witnesses from Offering Expert Medical Opinions [ECF No. 178] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to Liability Insurance [ECF No. 179] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff C.C.'s Omnibus Motions in Limine [ECF No. 180] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on September 20, 2018. (MCB)
August 14, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 162 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Suzuki Manufacturing of America Corporation and Suzuki Motor Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment on All Counts of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 110 is GRANTED, in part, an d DENIED, in part. Plaintiff's failure to warn claim against Defendants SMAC and SMC is DISMISSED, with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Suzuki Manufacturing of America Corporation and Suzuki Motor Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Punitive Damages 115 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 8/14/18. (KXS)
June 20, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 132 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions 97 is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. The Court will revisit the motion for sanctions, subsequently. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 6/20/2018. (CBL)
February 13, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 89 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Suzuki Manufacturing of America Corporation and Suzuki Motor Corporations Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition of Non-Pa rty Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. 78 is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Suzuki Motor Corporations Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs First Set of Request for Admissions Directed to Defendant Suzuki Motor Corporation 79 is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 2/13/2018. (CBL)
November 14, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 71 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion, without prejudice, to be refiled once the parties have had a chance to meet and confer over the issues. Further, the Court instructs the parties to follow the proc edure outlined in the Case Management Order to schedule a telephone conference prior to filing a motion to compel. Hopefully, these measures can resolve the issues without requiring further briefing.Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff C.C.'s Motion to Strike Defendant's Objections and to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Written Discovery 62 is DENIED, without prejudice. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 11/14/2017. (CBL)
October 16, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 65 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Suzuki Motor Corporation's Motion to Dismiss 52 is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall effect service on Suzuki Motor Corporation no later than February 2, 2018. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on October 16, 2017. (MCB)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: C.C. v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: C.C.
Represented By: Timothy M. Cronin
Represented By: John G. Simon
Represented By: John M. Simon
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: Suzuki Manufacturing of America Corporation
Represented By: Benjamin S. Harner
Represented By: Carl J. Pesce
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.

Why Is My Information Online?