Benham v. Ozark Materials River Rock, LLC
| David Benham |
| Ozark Materials River Rock, LLC |
| 4:2011cv00339 |
| June 1, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma |
| Tulsa Office |
| Oklahoma |
| Gregory K Frizzell |
| Frank H McCarthy |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 33 U.S.C. ยง 1365 |
| 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
228
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John E Dowdell ; granting in part 185 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 214 Motion for Attorney Fees; accepting 225 Report and Recommendation (SAS, Chambers)
|
|
Filing
160
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by Judge John E Dowdell (Re: 2 Complaint ) (SAS, Chambers)
|
|
Filing
124
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John E Dowdell Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Regarding Defendant's Exhibit Three to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 82) is denied. Plaintiff's Moti on to Exclude the Report and Expert Testimony [of] Defendant's Proposed Expert Witness Randal Beeson (Doc. 70) is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 71) is denied. A new schedule setting this matter for trial will be entered herewith. ; denying 70 Motion to Exclude; denying 71 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 82 Motion to Strike Document(s) (Re: 2 Complaint ) (SAS, Chambers)
|
|
Filing
123
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John E Dowdell Defendant's (First) Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 58) is denied. Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response Brief to Defendant's Motion to Stay Along with Exhibits and Requ est for Emergent and Immediate Relief Including Admonishing Plaintiff's Lawyers for Failure to Comply with this Court's Standards of Conduct (Doc. 63) is also denied. Plaintiff's Motion to Provide Supplemental Factual Information in Op position to Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 66) is granted. Defendant's (Second) Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 97) is denied. ; setting/resetting scheduling order date(s): ; striking/withdrawing document(s); den ying 58 Motion to Stay; denying 63 Motion to Strike Document(s); granting 66 Motion to Supplement; denying 97 Motion to Stay (Re: 2 Complaint, 121 Notice (Other), ) (Documents Terminated: 121 Notice (Other), ) (SAS, Chambers)
|
|
Filing
114
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; granting 96 Motion to Compel (tjc, Dpty Clk)
|
|
Filing
74
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; granting 67 Motion to Compel (tjc, 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
| Search for this case: Benham v. Ozark Materials River Rock, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: David Benham | |
| Represented By: | Jason Bjorn Aamodt |
| Represented By: | Krystina Elizabeth Hollarn |
| 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: Ozark Materials River Rock, LLC | |
| 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.
