Torrez Cruz et al v. Kumho Industrial Co., LTD et al
| Raynaldo Torrez Cruz and Lisa Cruz |
| Kumho Industrial CO., LTD, Kumho Tire CO., LTD, Kumho Tire USA, INC., Kumho Development, Inc. and Dacotah-Walsh Tire Incorporated |
| 8:2010cv00219 |
| February 25, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Plattsburgh Office |
| Clinton |
| David R. Homer |
| David N. Hurd |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1446 Notice of Removal |
| None |
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
107
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 81 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 83 Motion for Summary Judgment: The Court hereby ORDERS that the Tire Defendants' motion to preclude the testimony of Gary A. Derian is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and the Court further ORDERS that the Tire Defendants' motion to preclude the testimony of Gary A. Derian is GRANTED as to testimony regarding a design defect opinion; an d the Court further ORDERS that the Tire Defendants' motion to preclude the testimony of Gary A. Derian is DENIED as to testimony regarding a manufacturing defect opinion and DENIED without prejudice to renew as to testimony regarding an accid ent causation opinion; and the Court further ORDERS that the Tire Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and the Court further ORDERS that the Tire Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' design defect strict liability and negligence claims, failure to warn claim, breach of express warranty claim, and claims against Dacotah- Walsh; and the Court further ORDERS that the Tire Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiffs' manufacturing defect strict liability and negligence claims, breach of implied warranty claim, and loss of consortium claim; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant Dacotah- Walsh Tire Incorporated is DISMISSED from this action; and the Court further ORDERS that the Mack Defendants' motion to preclude the testimony of Erin Shipp, Wayne McCracken, and David Smith is DENIED; and the Court further ORDERS that the Mack Defendants' motion f or summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and the Court further ORDERS that the Mack Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Defendant Mack Trucks, Inc. as to Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranty claim; and the Court further ORDERS that the Mack Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to Defendant Mack Trucks, Inc. as to Plaintiffs' design defect strict liability and negligence claims, failure to warn claim, and loss of co nsortium claim; and the Court further ORDERS that the Mack Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Defendant Ballard Mack Sales & Service, Inc. as to Plaintiffs' design defect negligence claim, failure to warn claim, and breach of implied warranty claim; and the Court further ORDERS that the Mack Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to Defendant Ballard Mack Sales & Service, Inc. as to Plaintiffs' design defect strict liability claim and loss of consortium claim; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order in accordance with the Local Rules Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 5/11/15. (ban)
|
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.
