Royal Sun Alliance Insurance PLC v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Royal Sun Alliance Insurance PLC
Defendant: UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and International Management Services Company, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2009cv05935
Filed: June 29, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: XX Out of U.S.
Presiding Judge: Laura Taylor Swain
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1337 Sherman-Clayton Act
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
August 31, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 181 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: 112 MOTION in Limine to Preclude the Expert Testimony of Trooper Jeffrey Plouch filed by TFE Logistics Group, Inc., International Management Services Company, Inc., 124 MOTION in Limine to Preclude the Expert Testimony of Corporal Jeffrey Ramsey filed by TFE Logistics Group, Inc., International Management Services Company, Inc., 109 MOTION in Limine to Preclude and/or Limit IMSCO Expert Stephen Fenton's Proposed Testimony: In Particular to Preclude Reliance Upon Computer Simulations (1) Utilizing Speculative Factual Inputs and/or (2) Not Timely Produced in Discovery. MOTION in Limine to Preclude and/or Limit IMSCO Expert Stephen Fenton's Proposed Testimony: In Particular to Preclude Reliance Upon Computer Simulations (1) Utilizing Speculative Factual Inputs and/or (2) Not Timely Produced in Discovery filed by Royal Sun Alliance Insurance PLC, 115 MOTION in Limine to Preclude the Expert Testimony of Richard P. Millman, M.D. filed by TFE Logi stics Group, Inc., International Management Services Company, Inc., 121 MOTION in Limine to Preclude the Expert Testimony of Paul J. Paxton filed by TFE Logistics Group, Inc., International Management Services Company, Inc., 153 MOTION in Limine to Preclude the Hearsay Statement of Driver James Crews to Trooper Jeffrey Plouch filed by Royal Sun Alliance Insurance PLC, 127 MOTION in Limine to preclude evidence of or reference to the statement of the occurrence of the accident set forth in r eports prepared by personnel of IMSCO in relation to the worker's compensation claim of James Crews and Charles Harrison filed by TFE Logistics Group, Inc., International Management Services Company, Inc., 118 MOTION in Limine to Preclude the Expert Testimony of William Fogarty, Ph. D. filed by TFE Logistics Group, Inc., International Management Services Company, Inc., 156 MOTION in Limine of IMSCO for Order Precluding Evidence of or Reference to Excerpts of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Burn Center Regarding Speculation that Mr. Crews Suffered from Sleep Apnea in Plaintiff's Exhibit 20 and 22 filed by International Management Services Company, Inc. For the reasons set forth above, IMSCOs motions in limine as to Dr. R ichard Millman (Dkt. No. 115), Dr. William Fogarty (Dkt. No. 118), Corporal Jeffrey Ramsey (Dkt. No. 124), and Trooper Plouch (Dkt. No. 112) are denied. IMSCOs motion concerning the testimony of Paul Paxton (Dkt. No. 121) is granted in part and denie d in part. Paxton may testify about the propriety of Crews driving in the middle lane of I-30. IMSCOs motions seeking to exclude certain references in the injury report (Dkt. No. 127) and Burn Center documents (Dkt. No. 156) are denied. Royal Suns mo tion to limit the testimony of Stephen Fenton (Dkt. No. 109) is denied, pending the additional discovery described above. IMSCO must provide Fentons supplemental concerning the Fogarty Simulation no later than September 9, 2011. Moreover, IMSCO must make Fenton available for a deposition, lasting no more than four hours, as to the Avoidance and Fogarty Simulations on or by September 23, 2011. Failure to comply with this limited discovery order will result in restriction of Fentons testimony. Finally, Royal Suns motion in limine seeking to strike Crews statement to Trooper Plouch (Dkt. No. 153) is denied. (Signed by Judge Marvin E. Aspen on 8/31/2011) (mro)
February 16, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 133 ORDER: The Court has reviewed thoroughly the parties' submissions in connection with Plaintiffs motion, The proffered testimony as circumscribed by Defendant's opposition papers is relevant, and within the scope of evidence admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 702. Plaintiffs motion is, therefore, denied in its entirety. This memorandum order resolves docket entry no. 85. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 2/16/2011) (jpo)
July 23, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 60 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 38 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Defendants' Limitation of Liability Defenses filed by Royal Sun Alliance Insurance PLC. For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, RSA's motion for partial summary judgment is granted insofar as UPS is hereby declared to be liable to RSA for $250,000 of the loss at issue in this litigation; RSA's motion for summary judgment is denied as to the liability of WDS; an d RSA's motion for partial summary judgment against IMSCo and TFE is granted insofar as the Court hereby determines that the liability provision of the LSA is not applicable to any liability of IMSCo or TFE in connection with the transportation accident. In accordance with RSA's representations on page 9, note 3 of its brief in support of the instant motion, RSA's bailment and tort causes of action are voluntarily withdrawn, with prejudice, as against defendants UPS and WDS. To t he extent Defendants suggest that summary judgment should be granted in their favor with respect to any other element of the Second Amended Complaint that invitation is declined. The Court similarly declines to exercise its inherent power to award a ttorneys' fees to Defendants in connection with this motion practice; in that regard, that Court notes that its Individual Practices Rule 2B, if properly complied with prior to the initial motion practice, should have put Plaintiff on notice of the arguments that Defendants would make in opposition to the summary judgment motion, thus any prejudice that Defendants may perceive they have suffered in having to meet anticipatory arguments on the second round of motion papers cannot be laid to "sharp practices" on Plaintiff's part. This memorandum opinion and order resolves docket entry no. 38. The parties are directed to meet with Magistrate Judge Peck promptly for settlement purposes. A final pretrial conference will be held before the undersigned on Friday, 10/29/2010 at 2:00 PM. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 7/23/2010) (tro)
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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Royal Sun Alliance Insurance PLC v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, 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: Royal Sun Alliance Insurance PLC
Represented By: David Thomas Maloof
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: UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.
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: International Management Services Company, Inc.
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?