Richardson v. TI Automative Group Systems et al
Plaintiff: Earl Richardson
Defendant: TI Automative Group Systems, Bundy Tubing Corporation, Product Acton International and Industrial Commission of Ohio
Case Number: 3:2017cv00226
Filed: July 5, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Dayton Office
County: MONTGOMERY
Presiding Judge: Michael R. Merz
Presiding Judge: Thomas M. Rose
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury- Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
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 12, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 24 DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 20 , and DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO CLARIFY 18 and 19 . Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 1-12-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
December 18, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT: (1) PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS TO CLARIFY (DOC. 18 , 19 ) BE DENIED (DOC. 19 ); AND (2) THIS CASE REMAIN TERMINATED ON THE COURTS DOCKET. Objections to R&R due by 1/2/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 12/18/17. (kma)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
November 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 - It is ordered that Defendant TI's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's initial complaint 8 be DENIED AS MOOT, Defendant TI's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint 10 beGRANTE D, pro se Plaintiff's amended complaint 9 be DISMISSED and thiscase be TERMINATED on the Courts docket. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11-21-2017. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
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: Richardson v. TI Automative Group Systems et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Earl Richardson
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: TI Automative Group Systems
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: Bundy Tubing 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 ]
Defendant: Product Acton International
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: Industrial Commission of Ohio
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?