SHAWN VAN ASDALE, et al vs INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY
Case Number: 3:2004cv00703
Filed: December 1, 2004
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Reno Office
Presiding Judge: Robert A. McQuaid
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1514A
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
April 30, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 410 ORDER re 409 Proposed Order. Bond No. 0147946 shall be reduced to $1,268,740.92 effective 4/24/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid, Jr on 4/30/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
July 20, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 370 ORDER re 361 Motion for Approval of Bond. The court agrees with the controlling Tenth Circuit authority and Plaintiffs' Objection to Application for Approval of Bond 365 is DENIED. Defendant's bond in the sum of $4,643,240.44 360 is APPROVED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid, Jr. on 7/20/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)
May 27, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 357 AMENDED JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT: the plaintiff, Shawn Van Asdale, recover from the defendant, International Game Technology, $955,597.00, in actual damages; the plaintiff, Lena Van Asdale, recover from the defendant, International Game Technology, & #036;1,270,303.00, in actual damages.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Prejudgment Interest (Doc. #323-327) is GRANTED. The total amount of attorneys' fees awarded is $1,009,620.00. The total amount of costs awarded is $131,953.94. The total amount of prejudgment interest awarded is $1,275,766.50 ($552,418.62 to Shawn Van Asdale and $723,347.90 to Lena Van Asdale). Signed by Clerk of Court, Lance S. Wilson on 5/27/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
May 24, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 356 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING P's # 323 - 327 Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Prejudgment interest (as set forth herein). FURTHER ORD DENYING P's # 354 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid, Jr on 5/24/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
February 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 311 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Jury Trial (Day Nine) held on 2/7/2011 before Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid, Jr. Crtrm Administrator: Jennifer Cotter; Pla Counsel: Margo Piscevich and Mark Lenz; Def Counsel: Daniel O'Toole, Rich ard Campbell, Jr., and Lance Maiss; Court Reporter: Kathy French; Time of Hearing: 9:02 a.m. - 11:39 a.m.; Courtroom: 2. Witnesses: Lena Van Asdale and Shawn Van Asdale. Exhibits Admitted: Defendant's Exh ibit 81. IT IS ORDERED that 310 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is DENIED. Jury Trial continued to Tuesday, 2/8/2011, at 9:00 AM in Reno Courtroom 2 before Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid, Jr. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
June 14, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 266 ORDER denying 262 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid, Jr. on 6/14/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)
May 28, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 261 ORDER re 239 Defendant's Motion to Maintain Seal. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Maintain Seal 239 is GRANTED. The following documents will remain under seal: 173 Defendant's Motion for S/J; 177 Plain tiffs' Opposition to S/J; 183 Defendant's Reply to S/J; 181 Supplemental Declaration; 182 Second Supplemental Declaration; 201 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration; 205 Defendant's Opposition to Reconsideration; 209 Plaintiffs' Reply for Reconsideration; 64 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel; 81 Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosure; 135 Defendant's Motion for Terminating Sanctions; 144 Plaintiffs' Opposition; 148 Defendant's Reply; [14 7] Supplemental Declaration; 188 Supplemental Memorandum; and 187 Second Supplemental Declaration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other documents in this case not listed above will be UNSEALED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any party seeking to file a document under seal must comply with the requirements of Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid, Jr. on 5/28/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)
April 13, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 246 ORDER re 161 Motion to Retax Costs and Fees, 188 Motion for Certification and/or Reconsideration and 240 Motion to Strike Jury Demand. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Retax Costs and Fees 161 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in p art. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Certification and/or Reconsideration 188 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Jury Demand 240 is GRANTED. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid, Jr. on 4/13/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)
December 8, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 235 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 173 Motion for Summary Judgment as follows: Summary judgment on Claims II-VI is GRANTED; Summary judgment on application of the after-acquired evidence doctrine is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid, Jr. on 12/8/2009. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)
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 Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: SHAWN VAN ASDALE, et al vs INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY
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.


Why Is My Information Online?