S.S., et al v Leatt Corporation
| S.S., Sheri Scarvelli and Timothy Scarvelli |
| Leatt Corporation |
| 5:2012cv00483 |
| February 28, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Cleveland Office |
| Lorain |
| Patricia A. Gaughan |
| Personal Injury- Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
132
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Defendant's Motion to Bifurcate Punitive Damages (Doc. 101 ) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART; Defendant's Motion in Limine Re Dr. Leatt's Plea (Doc. 102 ) is GRANTED; Defendant's Motio n in Limine to Exclude Other Accidents and Reports (Doc. 103 ) is GRANTED; Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude White Paper Edits by Counsel (Doc. 105 ) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED; Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Other Neck Brace Designs (Doc. 106 ) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART; Plaintiff's Motions in Limine (Doc. 107 ) are GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART; Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Re Dr. Leatt's "White Paper" (Publication Date May 2012)(Doc. 108 ) is DENIED AT THIS TIME; Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testing of Terrance Smith (Doc. 109 ) is DENIED; and Plaintiff's Motion (sic) in Support of Motion to Exclude BMW Testing and any Related Conclusions (Doc. 110 ) is GRANTED at this time. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 1/31/14. (LC,S)
|
|
Filing
95
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Pending before the Court is Defendant Leatt Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 71 ). Leatt's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Leatt's motion is den ied with respect to plaintiffs' product liability claims as there is sufficient admissible evidence to demonstrate a product defect and causation. Leatt's motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to plaintiffs' alleged claims for "misrepresentation" (third cause of action) and under the OCSPA (fourth cause of action) as those claims are abrogated by the OPLA. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 7/17/13. (LC,S)
|
|
Filing
94
Memorandum Opinion and Order: This is a products liability case. Five motions to exclude expert opinion testimony are pending before the Court: (1) Defendant's Motion to Exclude Proposed Expert Testimony by William F. Kitzes (Doc. 54 ); Defendant's Motion to Exclude Proposed Opinion by Richard L. Stalnaker (Doc. 59 ); Defendant's Motion to Exclude Proposed Opinion Testimony by Joseph Burton (Doc. 68 ); Defendant's Motion to Exclude Proposed Opinion Testimony by C arol Pollack-Nelson (Doc. 70 ); and Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Mitchell Garber as an Expert Witness (Doc. 72 ). For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motions to exclude the expert testimony of William F. Kitzes and Carol Pollack-Nelson are granted. The remaining motions to exclude expert testimony are all denied. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 7/15/13. (LC,S)
|
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.
