Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc. v. Branch et al
| Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc. |
| Daniel Branch, David Branch and Martin Kern |
| 5:2009cv01575 |
| July 9, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Akron Office |
| Summit |
| Sara Lioi |
| Plaintiff |
| No cause code entered |
| 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
475
Memorandum Opinion and Order The Court grants Defendant Martin Kern's and Defendant David Branch's Motions to Strike the Juror Letter and Counsel's Affidavit (ECF Nos. 451 ; 453 ). The Court denies Plaintiff Hitachi Medical Systems America Inc.'s Motion for a New Trial (ECF No. 447 ). The Court denies as moot Defendant David Branch's remaining motions (ECF Nos. 454 ; 459 ; 469 ). Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 9/5/2012. (S,L)
|
|
Filing
449
Memorandum Opinion and Order Pursuant to Rule 60(a), the Court hereby amends the Judgment Entry, ECF No. 444 , to reflect its ruling that David Branch is ordered to pay to Plaintiff Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc. $64,940.50. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 12/23/2011. (S,L)
|
|
Filing
383
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Defendant Martin Kern and Plaintiff Hitachis objection to the Report and Recommendations are overruled, except as stated in this Order. Summary judgment is granted in Defendant Martin Kerns favor as it relates t o piercing the corporate veil of JFB Holdings, Inc. and denied as to piercing the corporate veil of Horizon Medical Group, Inc. Summary judgment as to Plaintiff Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc. is denied. Defendant David Branch's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as moot. 81 , 97 , 284 , 325 and 326 . Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 9/7/11. (BR,S)
|
|
Filing
371
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The court hereby amends a portion of its prior order (related document 295 ) regarding David Branch's sanction issued April 5, 2011 as as follows: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), the Court proh ibits Defendant David Branch from initiating the introduction of, reference to, or reliance upon documents or information in the form of or derived from documents or information that he failed to produce during pre-trial discovery. To the extent Dav id Branch is questioned, by opposing counsel, about documents or information requested of him that he failed to produce, he may respond if under oath and on the witness stand. The modification of the Courts ruling permits the following to occur at t rial: if questioned, by opposing counsel, about documents or information not produced pretrial, David Branchs testimony, during a responsive examination by his own counsel (or pro se) will be limited to the narrow scope of the line of questioning put to him during the earlier examination by opposing counsel. With that limitation, however, he will be permitted to testify about the same documents and information presented to him during opposing counsels examination. The balance of the Court's order remains in place. Judge Benita Y. Pearson 8/11/2011. (R,Li)
|
|
Filing
322
Memorandum Opinion and Order The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Limbert's 314 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc.'s 298 Request for Entry of Judgment as to Defendant Daniel Branch is granted. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 5/13/2011. (S,L)
|
|
Filing
295
Memorandum Opinion and Order Plaintiff's 197 Motion for Sanctions and 203 Motion for Leave to Seek Additional Items of Relief Through its Motion for Sanctions Instanter are granted with regard to Defendants Daniel Branch and David B ranch only.Plaintiff's unopposed Motion Requesting that the Court Adopt the Magistrate Judges Amended Report and Recommendation Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Daniel Branch (ECF Dkt. 224) (ECF No. 257 ) is gra nted. Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of Plaintiff Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc. against Defendant Daniel Branch in the amount of $3,286,159.51. The judgment is one for fraudulent transfer with the intent to hinder, delay, and def raud creditors including Plaintiff. The judgment also permits Plaintiff to pierce the corporate veil holding Defendant Daniel Branch individually liable. This case will be set for a default judgment hearing to determine the amount of punitive dama ges, interest, and attorneys fees at the convenience of the Court. Plaintiff's 223 Motion for Leave to Seek Second Additional Items of Relief Through its Motion for Sanctions Instanter is granted. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), Defendant David Branch is prohibited from supporting or opposing all claims or defenses and from introducing any evidence in the case at bar. On or before 4/11/2011, Defendant David Branch shall furnish all outstanding discovery to Plaintiff. On o r before 4/18/2011, lead counsel of record for Plaintiff shall submit an affidavit detailing the time expended and applicable hourly rate, together with an itemization of costs incurred as a result of Defendant David Branchs failures to provide mater ials requested in discovery and to comply with discovery orders. Thereafter, the Court will award the reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees, in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant David Branch. Defendant David Branch's 249 Request for a Phone Conference with Magistrate Judge Limbert is denied. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 4/5/2011. (S,L)
|
|
Filing
258
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a supplement (Doc. No. 213 ) to its brief in opposition to defendant Kern's objection is granted. Defendant Kern has failed to demonstrate that any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. No. 185 ) to which he has objected is clearly erroneous. Accordingly, Defendant Kern's objection (Doc. No. 192 ) is overruled. Judge Sara Lioi on 1/11/2011. (P,J)
|
|
Filing
179
Order: The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (Doc. No. 173 ) and adopts the same. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 41 ) is denied. Judge Sara Lioi on 10/7/2010. (P,J)
|
|
Filing
175
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Defendant David Branch's Objection to Magistrate Judge's order dated August 13, 2010 (Doc. No. 151 ), concerning three non-party subpoenas is overruled. (Related Doc # 168 , 172 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 9/24/2010. (P,J)
|
|
Filing
173
Interim Report and Recommendation: It is recommended that the Court deny plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Related document 41 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert on 9/14/10. (S,AA)
|
|
Filing
151
Order: Plaintiff's request for a telephone conference is denied; defendant David Branch's objections to non-party subpoenas with respect to Love Muscle Racing, Inc., Offshore Racing Madness, Inc., and Living LIfe Enterprises, Inc. ar e overruled; these entities are ordered to respond to the subpoenas on or before 8/20/10, unless their respective subpoena specifies a later date to respond; further, the Court holds ruling with respect to Questar in abeyance, and plaintiff is instru cted to file a response to defendant David Branch's objection, demonstrating the propriety of the subpoena with respect to Questar, in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(d) (Related documents 126 , 127 , 145 , 128 , and 129 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert on 8/13/10. (S,AA)
|
|
Filing
131
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not act contrary to law in striking the objections and denying the motion for reconsideration (Related Doc. 116 ). The Objection to magistrate's ruling of July 20, 2010 filed by Living Life Enterprises Inc. and Love Muscle Racing Inc. is overruled (Related Doc. 130 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 8/3/2010. (B,IE)
|
|
Filing
116
Order: The motion for reconsideration of non-parties Custodian of Records of Love Muscle Racing, Inc. and Living Life Enterprises, Inc. is denied (Related Doc # 114 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert on 7/20/10.(S,AA)
|
|
Filing
31
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) are denied. (Related Doc # 19 , 21 ). Plaintiff's motion to strike is denied as moot. (Related Doc # 25 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 3/4/2010. (P,J)
|
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.
