Foster et al v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Plaintiff: Frank Foster and Phillip Wamock
Defendant: Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Case Number: 2:2008cv00020
Filed: January 7, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Columbus Office
County: FRANKLIN
Presiding Judge: Terence P Kemp
Presiding Judge: Edmund A Sargus
Nature of Suit: Labor: Fair Standards
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 5, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 201 JUDGMENT is entered pursuant to the Opinion and Order filed 01/05/2012. This case is CLOSED. (dh1)
September 27, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 186 ORDER directing Parties to submit post trial briefs by 10/10/2011 and responses by 10/17/2011. Oral argument will be held on Monday, 10/24/2011 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 09/27/2011. (dh1)
September 8, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 174 ORDER clarifying the Court's 03/03/2010 Opinion and Order 84 . The Court's Opinion and Order should also be deemed to grant summary judgment to Defendant on the issues referred to in this Order as they relate to Plaintiffs' state law claims. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 09/08/2011. (dh1)
September 2, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 171 ORDER granting 143 Defendant's Motion in Limine; provisionally granting 144 Defendant's Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice 145 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine; granting in part 146 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine; p rovisionally granting 147 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine; granting in part 148 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine; and denying 151 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine. Plaintiff's Motions in Limine 149 and 150 are held in abeyance pending possible resolution by the Parties. Plaintiffs shall submit briefing on the objections raised by Defendant to Plaintiffs' proposed exhibits numbered 884-887 as outlined in the Order. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 09/02/2011. (dh1)
August 24, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 165 ORDER rescheduling the trial in this case from 09/12/2011 to 09/13/2011. All other applicable deadlines remain in effect. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 08/24/2011. (dh1)
August 4, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 142 ORDER ON TRIAL PROCEDURE: The Court's previous bifurcation order of 02/23/2011 is superseded by this Order, and the trial is ordered bifurcated to the extent set forth in this Order. The Plaintiffs shall present their case-in-chief first to th e jury, and the Defendants shall present their case-in-chief to the jury after the Plaintiffs rest. Plaintiffs and Defendant shall each have the opportunity to present rebuttal on any issue on which they have the burden of proof. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 08/04/2011. (dh1)
February 24, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 120 ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Settlement Conference set for 8/2/2011 at 9:30 AM; Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/1/2011 at 9:00 AM; and Jury Trial set for 9/12/2011 at 9:00 AM. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 02/24/2011. (Attachment: FPTO Form) (dh1)
February 23, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 119 ORDER granting in part 100 Defendant's Motion to Bifurcate Liability and Damages into Separate Trials. The trial is set for 09/12/2011 at 9:00 a.m. Defendant's Motion to Clarify Scheduling Order 101 is held in abeyance. The parties a re directed to confer and attempt to agree upon the size of a limited sample of Plaintiffs to potentially testify at trial as to the issue of overtime hours worked and advise the Magistrate Judge of the status of their efforts at their telephone conference. The parties may submit proposed case specific jury instructions within 60 days of this Order, responses due within 21 days of service and reply briefing within 14 days of responses. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 02/22/2011. (dh1)
April 7, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 89 OPINION AND ORDER denying 87 Defendant's Motion to Reconsider the Court's March 10, 2010 Opinion and Order 84 denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 04/07/2010. (dh)
March 10, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 84 OPINION AND ORDER denying 75 Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and denying 77 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 03/09/2010. (dh)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Foster et al v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Frank Foster
Represented By: Donald H Nichols
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: Phillip Wamock
Represented By: Donald H Nichols
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: Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
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?