Dailey et al v. Bridgeton Landfill, LLC et al
| Robbin Dailey and Michael Dailey |
| Cotter Corporation N.S.L., Bridgeton Landfill, LLC, Republic Services, Inc., Allied Services L.L.C., Rock Road Industries, Inc., MI Holdings Inc., Mallinckrodt Inc., Commonwealth Edison Company and Exelon Corporation |
| 4:2017cv00024 |
| January 6, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - County |
| Catherine D. Perry |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Defendant |
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
186
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs Michael and Robbin Daileys' Motion to Remand 174 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, from which it was removed. All other motions that remain pending in this action are reserved for ruling by that court. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 3/23/2020. (TMT)
|
|
Filing
156
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and to remand, or to amend case management order 123 is denied without prejudice. Defendants' motion to prevent plaintiffs from us ing material and information 142 is denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that not later than April 29, 2019, plaintiffs shall file either: 1) a motion to dismiss this case without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); or 2) a renewed motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, accompanied by the proposed amended complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court govern the time to file any responses and/or replies to plaintiffs' motion. IT I S FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' Motion for Oral Argument 151 is denied. The parties thus far have clearly and articulately presented their respective arguments in their prepared briefs. If I determine that oral argument is necessary to a ssist in my consideration of plaintiffs' anticipated motion to dismiss or to amend, I will not hesitate to schedule a hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case management deadlines in this case remain stayed. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 4/8/2019. (CBL)
|
|
Filing
149
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, to remand, and to stay [#123] is GRANTED ONLY with respect to a STAY of future Amended Case Management Order (ECF No. 119) deadlines, and is HELD IN ABEYAN CE with respect to leave to amend, remand, and alternatively, amendment of the case management order. Once the Court has ruled pending motions, a new schedule shall be established for this matter, if necessary. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on June 5, 2018. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
89
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Mallinckrodt LLC's motion to dismiss [# 71 ] and defendants Allied Services LLC, Bridgeton Landfill LLC, Cotter Corporation, Republic Services Inc., and Rock Road Ind ustries, Inc.'s motion to dismiss [# 72 ] are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Counts II through IV of the First Amended Complaint are dismissed. Plaintiffs' claims for medical monitoring and emotional distress are also dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' requests for oral argument on the motions to dismiss are DENIED. This case will be set for a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference by separate order. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 10/27/2017. (CBL)
|
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.
