Torres v. Cintas Corporation et al
| Amalia Diaz Torres |
| Cintas Corporation, Lavatech, Inc., Charles Benson, Steve Jordan and Tommy Cocanougher |
| 4:2008cv00185 |
| April 2, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability Office |
| Tulsa |
| Paul J Cleary |
| Claire V Eagan |
| Plaintiff |
| Diversity |
| 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Wrongful Death |
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
411
OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Claire V Eagan that Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion in Limine for Credit for Workers' Compensation Payments Made to Plaintiff (Dkt. ## 285, 286) is granted. Plaintiff's Parret claim is not barred by the doctrine of election of remedies, and she may proceed with her Parret claim. ; granting 285 Motion in Limine (Re: 286 SEALED MOTION ) (RGG, Chambers)
|
|
Filing
403
OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Claire V Eagan that Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion in Limine to Exclude Speculative References to Pain and Suffering (Dkt. ## 252, 253) is granted in part and denied in part; Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Dkt. # 260) is granted in part, denied in part, and moot in part; Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Eleazor Torres' Alleged Negligence or Comparative Fault (Dkt. ## 258, 262) is granted in part and denied in part; Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion in Limine to Allow Jury to View Evidence at Accident Site and Brief in Support (Dkt. ## 253, 264) is moot; Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion in Limine to Exclude E vidence Concerning an Investigation by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration and Brief in Support (Dkt. ## 255, 265) is granted in part and denied in part; Defendant Cintas Corporations' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning Subsequent Remedial Measures and Brief in Support (Dkt. ## 256, 268) is moot; Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning Other Incidents and Conduct at Different Cintas Facilities (Dkt. & #035;# 275, 279) is granted in part and denied in part; Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of the OSHA Interview Narrative Purportedly Given by Randy Harris (Dkt. ## 281, 282) is granted; Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs from Asking Witnesses about the General Opinions on Workplace Safety and Brief in Support (Dkt. ## 283, 284) is granted in part and denied in part. ; granting in part an d denying in part 252 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 260 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 262 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 265 Motion in Limine; granting in part and deny ing in part 275 Motion in Limine; granting 281 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 283 Motion in Limine (Re: 255 SEALED MOTION, 253 SEALED MOTION, 268 Redacted MOTION in Limine tp Exclude Evidence Concerning Subsequent Remedial Measures, 284 SEALED MOTION, 264 Redacted MOTION in Limine to Allow Jury to View Evidence at Accident Site, 256 SEALED MOTION, 282 SEALED MOTION, 279 SEALED MOTION, 258 SEALED MOTION ) (RGG, Chambers)
|
|
Filing
398
OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Claire V Eagan ; finding as moot 261 Motion in Limine; finding as moot 263 Motion in Limine; denying 293 Motion in Limine; denying 294 Motion in Limine (Re: 263 Redacted MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testim ony from William Howard and Edward Kwasnick, 261 Redacted MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony from Dr. Alfred Bowles, 295 Sealed Unredacted Version per Local Rule 5.3(b), 294 Amended MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony from William Howard and Edward Kwasnick, 259 SEALED MOTION, 293 Amended MOTION in Limine To Exclude Testimony from Dr. Alfred Bowles, 292 Sealed Unredacted Version per Local Rule 5.3(b), 257 SEALED MOTION ) (RGG, Chambers)
|
|
Filing
227
OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Claire V Eagan that Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. ## 106, 109) is denied. Defendant Lavatec, Inc.'s, Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 116) is granted in part and denied in part; it is granted as to applicability of the statue of repose, but denied based on inadequacy of the 2001 warning sticker. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (Dkt. # 113) is accepted, and plaintiff 9;s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 102) is denied. ; denying 102 Sealed Motion; denying 106 Sealed Motion; denying 109 Motion for Summary Judgment; accepting 113 Report and Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part 116 Motion for Summary Judgment (Re: State Court Petition/Complaint ) (RGG, Chambers)
|
|
Filing
126
OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Claire V Eagan denying motion to reconsider ; denying 89 Sealed Motion (Re: 13 Opinion and Order, Adding/Terminating Party(ies), 30 Opinion and Order,, Ruling on Motion to Remand ) (RGG, Chambers)
|
|
Filing
113
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge T Lane Wilson (Re: 102 SEALED MOTION ) (crp, Dpty Clk)
|
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 Oklahoma 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.
