Meta v. Target Corporation

Meta v. Target Corporation

Plaintiff:	Christopher Meta
Defendant:	Target Corporation
Case Number:	4:2014cv00832
Filed:	April 18, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office:	Youngstown Office
County:	Columbiana
Presiding Judge:	Donald C. Nugent
Nature of Suit:	Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
September 20, 2016	Filing 147 Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's Motion for class certification and appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's motion is granted, subject to class definition changes set forth. The Court finds that Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP and Tycko & Zavareei LLP satisfy the requirements for class appointment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) (1), (2)and (4) and are, therefore, appointed to serve as class counsel for the certified class on the warranty claims against Target. Judge Donald C. Nugent 9/19/16(Related Doc # 113 ). (C,KA)
February 11, 2015	Filing 33 Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part defendants' partial motions to dismiss (Related Docs # 17 and # 19 ). Counts I through III of the Amended Class Action Complaint 4 are abrogated by the OPLA and are dismissed. Count IV for negligent misrepresentation is dismissed because such a claim is not available under the facts as plead. All other counts of the Amended Class Action Complaint 4 remain.Judge Donald C. Nugent(C,KA)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 20, 2016

Filing 147 Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's Motion for class certification and appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's motion is granted, subject to class definition changes set forth. The Court finds that Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP and Tycko & Zavareei LLP satisfy the requirements for class appointment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) (1), (2)and (4) and are, therefore, appointed to serve as class counsel for the certified class on the warranty claims against Target. Judge Donald C. Nugent 9/19/16(Related Doc # 113 ). (C,KA)

February 11, 2015

Filing 33 Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part defendants' partial motions to dismiss (Related Docs # 17 and # 19 ). Counts I through III of the Amended Class Action Complaint 4 are abrogated by the OPLA and are dismissed. Count IV for negligent misrepresentation is dismissed because such a claim is not available under the facts as plead. All other counts of the Amended Class Action Complaint 4 remain.Judge Donald C. Nugent(C,KA)

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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Meta v. Target Corporation
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Christopher Meta
Represented By:	Daniel Frech
Represented By:	Stuart E. Scott
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: Target Corporation
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?