Brooks v. Caswell et al
| Gretchen Brooks |
| Harlon Rip Caswell, Caswell Properties, LLC, Does 1-5 and Rip Caswell Sculptures, Inc. |
| 3:2014cv01232 |
| July 31, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland (3) Office |
| John V. Acosta |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Fraud |
| Plaintiff |
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 - Defendants' motion 199 to amend judgment and for sanctions is GRANTED to the extent the court failed to view the evidence relating to Brooks's ability to inspect the Molds in Defendants' favor but DENIED in all other respects. Brooks's motion 202 for attorney fees is DENIED. DATED this 25th day of May, 2017, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
|
|
Filing
197
OPINION and ORDER - Brooks's motion 185 for summary judgment on Caswell Sculptures's counterclaim under the UCC is GRANTED. Dated this 28th day of December, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
|
|
Filing
180
OPINION and ORDER - Defendants' motion 143 for summary judgment on Brooks's First, Second, Fourth, and Sixth Claims for Relief is GRANTED. Defendants' motion 166 to strike the Koenke Declaration is denied as moot. DATED this 27th day of October, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
|
|
Filing
137
OPINION and ORDER - Defendants' Motion 95 for Partial Summary Judgment re: Claim of Missing Molds is GRANTED. DATED this 14th day of March, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
|
|
Filing
136
AMENDED OPINION and ORDER - Defendants originally chose to assert a failure to state a claim defense not by motion but in their answers. Only after Brooks filed the Amended Complaint did they move to dismiss. The matter added by the amendment to the Initial Complaint did not alter the substance or grounds supporting the claims for relief asserted in the Initial Complaint. Therefore, because Motion to Dismiss 84 attacks allegations appearing previously in the Initial Complaint, the Motion is un timely and is DENIED. Defendants alternative motion to make more definite and certain is also DENIED, given that even the Initial Complaint, which lacked as much detail and clarity as the Amended Complaint, was sufficiently definite and certain for D efendants to prepare and file multiple answers and a motion for summary judgment. DATED this 7th day of March, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. Modified on 3/7/2016 to add the word "Amended" to the title of the document. (peg)
|
|
Filing
133
OPINION and ORDER - Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 48 is DENIED and Defendants' Alternative Motion to make more Definite and Certain is also DENIED. DATED this 2nd day of March, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
|
|
Filing
100
OPINION and ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Ninth Affirmative Defense 60 is DENIED. DATED this 3rd day of September, 2015, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
|
|
Filing
79
OPINION and ORDER - Brooks's motion 49 to amend is DENIED without prejudice with regard to the addition of Caswell Gardens as a defendant and is GRANTED in all other respects. Defendants identified as DOES 1-5 are dismissed from this actions. DATED this 30th day of June, 2015, by United States +Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
|
|
Filing
40
OPINION and ORDER - Brook's Motion 22 to Disqualify Seidl as counsel for Defendants is DENIED. DATED this 12th day of March, 2015, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
|
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 Oregon 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.
