Migliori v. Honeywell et al
| Joseph Migliori |
| Honeywell, Local 533, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America |
| 3:2016cv01136 |
| May 13, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Toledo Office |
| Lucas |
| James G. Carr |
| Labor/Management Relations |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 185 |
| Plaintiff |
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
63
Order: The defendant's renewed motions for sanctions and attorneys' fees and costs (Doc. 52 ), as supported by their attorneys' verified petition, be, and the same hereby is granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendant Honeywell, Inc., and against the plaintiff in the amount of $127,819.20. The Clerk shall accept no further pleadings in this case from the plaintiff; any and all such pleadings shall be returned to him unopened. Defendant's motion to substitute counsel of record (Doc. 61 ) be, and the same hereby is, granted. Judge James G. Carr on 5/9/18. (C,D)
|
|
Filing
53
Order: Defendant's renewed motion for sanctions (Doc. 52 ) and to strike (Re: 46 44 ), be, and the same hereby is, granted as modified. Defendant shall submit its verified statement as outlined in the order by 1/31/18. Plaintiff shall respond to said statement within three weeks of its filing; failure to do so shall result in entry in full against him of judgment in the amount the defendant requests in said statement. Plaintiff is permanently enjoined from henceforth fi ling any further actions as stated in the order. Failure to comply with this order and Injunction shall result in plaintiff being required to appear and show cause why he should not be found and adjudicated in contempt of this Order, and sanction s thereby imposed to the full extent law and equity may allow for his contumacious misconduct. Plaintiff could not appeal this order in good faith; if he does so, and if the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals finds any such appeal unfounded, and fails to impose sanctions on the plaintiff, the defendant hereby has leave to file a further motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Judge James G. Carr on 1/2/18. (C,D)
|
|
Filing
38
Order: Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 14 , 17 ) be, and the same hereby are, granted. Defendant Honeywell's motion to enforce settlement agreement (Doc. 19 ) be, and the same hereby is, deemed moot. Plaintiff's motion for an injunctive stay (Doc. 21 ) and defendant UAW's motionto strike plaintiff's motion for an injunctive stay (Doc. 22 ) be, and the samehereby are, deemed moot. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and for defendant U.A.W. to lose its charter (Doc. 27 ) be, and the same hereby is, denied. Plaintiff's motion to refund union dues and for union officers to lose their pensions (Doc. 28 ) be, and the same hereby is, deemed moot. Plaintiff's motion for temporary res training order to prevent healthcare to be stopped on January 1, 2017 (Doc. 31 ) be, and the same hereby is, deemed moot. Defendant Honeywell's motion to consolidate response deadlines to plaintiff'snew motions (Doc. 32 ) be, and the same hereby is, deemed moot; and 8. Defendant Honeywell's motion to strike all of plaintiff's motions or for Rule 56(D) relief (Doc. 36) be, and the same hereby is, deemed moot. An appeal from this decision would be without merit and have no plausible. Judge James G. Carr on 12/21/16.(C,D)
|
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 Ohio 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.
