Hunter et al v. Shanghai Huangzhou Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al
| Meghan Hunter and M.H. |
| Shanghai Huangzhou Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Shanghai Huangzhou Industry Co., Ltd., Quality Craft Home Decor, Inc., Quality Craft Mergerco, Quality Craft Ltd., QCIL International, Inc., Collins Co. Ltd., Collins International Co. Ltd., Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., The Home Depot, Inc., HD Development of Maryland, Inc. and Osram Sylvania, Inc. |
| The Home Depot, Inc., Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., HD Development of Maryland, Inc. and Osram Sylvania, Inc. |
| Collins Co. Ltd., Collins International Co. Ltd., Osram Sylvania, Inc., QCIL International, Inc., Quality Craft Home Decor, Inc., Quality Craft Ltd., Quality Craft Mergerco, Shanghai Huangzhou Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Shanghai Huangzhou Industry Co., Ltd., HD Development of Maryland, Inc., Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and The Home Depot, Inc. |
| 5:2017cv00052 |
| January 13, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Syracuse Office |
| Onondaga |
| David E. Peebles |
| Brenda K. Sannes |
| Other Personal Injury |
| 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
174
REDACTED ORDER: re 173 , granting 171 Motion to Approve Infancy Settlement. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 7/23/2021. (nmk)
|
|
Filing
169
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties' joint motion to redact the gross settlement amount, individual distribution amounts, litigation expenses and attorneys' fees from their forthcoming petition to approve their settlement of the infant plaintiff's claim, (Dkt. No. 167 ), is GRANTED as to the gross settlement amount and individual distribution amounts, but DENIED as to attorneys' fees or litigation expenses. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 5/28/2021. (nmk)
|
|
Filing
164
ORDER that Plaintiffs' renewed Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 151 ) is DENIED without prejudice, with leave to refile after resolution of the claims against the actively litigating defendants. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 12/7/2020. (rjb, )
|
|
Filing
150
ORDER denying the 121 Motion for Entry of Default Judgment without prejudice. Plaintiffs may renew the Motion for Default Judgment by filing, within thirty days of the date of this Order, evidence and a memorandum of law addressing whether this C ourt has personal jurisdiction over the Shanghai Huangzhou Defendants. If Plaintiffs renew the Motion for Default Judgment, the memorandum of law should also address whether the Amended Complaint sufficiently states a cause of action against the S hanghai Huangzhou Defendants for the issuance of a default judgment, as well as the issue of damages; if Plaintiffs elect not to renew the Motion for Default Judgment, Plaintiffs are directed to provide the Court with a status report within thirty days of the date of this Order, addressing what action Plaintiffs seek to take regarding the Shanghai Huangzhou Defendants. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 9/3/2020. (rjb, )
|
|
Filing
102
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Hearing set for 11/1/2019 at 11:00 AM in Syracuse before Judge Brenda K. Sannes. Counsel for the Quality Craft Defendants is directed to effect personal service of this Order upon non-party Travis Carter by October 17, 2019, and to file proof of such service by October 21, 2019. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 10/3/2019. (rjb, )
|
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 New York Northern 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.
