Page v. Unimerica Insurance Company et al
| Susan Page |
| Unimerica Insurance Company and Johnson Electric North America, Inc. |
| 3:2012cv00103 |
| December 7, 2011 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| FRANKLIN |
| Walter H Rice |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 1001 |
| None |
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
89
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING DEFENDANT UNIMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. # 78 ); SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART DEFENDANT JOHNSON ELECTRIC NORTH AMERICA, INC.'S, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. #[ 79]); AND DISMISSING ALL CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF SUSAN PAGE'S COMPLAINT (DOC. # 2 ) WITH PREJUDICE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COUNT TWO, THE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT JOHNSON ELECTRIC NORTH AMERICA, INC.; CONFERENCE CALL SET WITH COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF AND FOR JOHNSON ELECTRIC ONLY. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 7/27/15. (pb)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER OF REFERENCE - Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(l)(A), (B), and (C), and §636(b)(3), the captioned action is hereby referred to United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington, ADR Coordinator. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 04/08/14. (pb1)
|
|
Filing
58
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. # 55 ) OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS (DOC. # 56 ) TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING; OVERRULING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND D ISMISS WITH PREJUDICE (DOC. # 28 ), AND OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES (DOC. # 34 ); CONFERENCE CALL SET for 4/8/2014 at 9:00 AM by Teleconference before Judge Walter H Rice. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 03/25/14. (pb1)
|
|
Filing
55
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Magistrate Judge finds no sanctionable conduct on the part of either Mr. Brown or counsel for Johnson Electric. Certainly the question whether there was an enforceable settlement agreement was litigable in good faith and no attorney fees should be awarded. Objections to R&R due by 2/3/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 1/17/2014. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
41
PRE-HEARING ORDER - In order that the evidentiary hearing proceed in an orderly fashion and that the Court be prepared for it, it is hereby ORDERED that, not later than June 21, 2013, each party file a list of the witnesses to be called at the hearin g and a list of the documentary evidence to be presented. After the lists are filed, counsel shall consult with one another in an effort to resolve any evidentiary objections to the documents. Copies of the documents to be offered, bound, tabbed, and marked as require for trial exhibits in this Court's General Order Day 12-01, shall be deposited with Courtroom Deputy Clerk Kelly Kopf not later than 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 25, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 6/12/2013. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING - Counsel, including Mr. Brown, shall consult among themselves to determine an available date for an in-person evidentiary hearing after April 15, 2013, and advise the Court's judicial assistant Kelly Kopf at 937-512-1551 of the available dates. The Court will then set the hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/29/2013. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
18
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 04/25/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (kf)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 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.
