Dippel v. Philips Products, Inc.
Plaintiff: Daniel Dippel
Defendant: Philips Products, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2009cv00253
Filed: July 10, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Office: Asheville Office
County: Buncombe
Presiding Judge:
Presiding Judge: Dennis Howell
Presiding Judge: Lacy Thornburg
Nature of Suit: Defendant
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 29, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 33 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER denying without prejudice to renewal 29 Motion for Summary Judgment ; denying without prejudice to renewal 26 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is hereby REMANDED to the Defendants Plan Administrator for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.The Clerk of Court is instructed to administratively close this case during remand. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 3/28/11. (siw)
January 26, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER re 22 Designation of Mediator. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 1/26/10. (siw)
January 7, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER that on or before fifteen (15) days from entry of this Order, the parties shall advise whether mediation is sought. In the event that the parties seek mediation, they shall also advise the Court of the name of the mediat or upon which they have agreed or advise that no such agreement has been reached. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event mediation is not sought,the Plaintiff may file a motion for summary judgment on or before forty-five(45) days from entry of this Order. The Defendant may file responseand/or a cross-motion for summary judgment on or before forty-five (45)days from the filing of the Plaintiffs motion. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 1/7/10. (siw)
August 20, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER (1) pltf granted leave to amend his Complaint and file such by 9/14/09; and (2) deft file their Answer or other responsive pleading not later than10/2/09, and the Administrative Record by 10/17/09. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 8/20/09. (ejb)
August 11, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER that this matter is CALENDARED for an initial pretrial conference on Thursday, August 20, 2009, at 2 p.m., Courtroom #2, in Asheville. Respective counsel shall advise the court not later than 5 p.m. on the day before the hearing as to whether all issues have been resolved concerning the nature of the case, any agreement as to amendment of pleadings, and the breadth of discovery if any.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 8/11/09. (siw)
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 North Carolina Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Dippel v. Philips Products, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Philips Products, Inc.
Represented By: Brian Stephen Clarke
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 ]
Plaintiff: Daniel Dippel
Represented By: Robert Charles Carpenter
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?