Murphy v. Westerlund et al
||Dennis J. Murphy, Sr.
||David Westerlund and Lori Westerlund
||June 16, 2015
||US District Court for the District of Oregon
||Portland (3) Office
||Stacie F. Beckerman
|Nature of Suit:
||Contract: Other Contract Actions
|Cause of Action:
||28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|January 29, 2018
Opinion and Order - The Murphy Parties' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 85 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All that remains for trial are the Westerlund Parties' claims for breach of the Log Handling Agreement, fraud, qua ntum meruit, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. The Westerlund Parties may seek lost future profits on their fraud claim only, but may seek lost past profits under the Log Handling Agreement. Signed on 1/29/2018 by Judge Michael H. Simon. Associated Cases: 3:15-cv-01296-SI, 3:15-cv-01072-SI, 3:15-cv-01459-SI (mja)
|June 21, 2017
Opinion and Order - Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 70 ) is DENIED. Signed on 6/21/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon.Associated Cases: 3:15-cv-01296-SI, 3:15-cv-01072-SI, 3:15-cv-01459-SI (mja)
|April 4, 2016
ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 43 . Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 17 ) is DENIED. Signed on 4/4/2016 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
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
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?