DUCHESNEAU v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY et al
| RANDALL DUCHESNEAU |
| CORNELL UNIVERSITY and TUMBLTRAK |
| 2:2008cv04856 |
| October 10, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| P.I.: Other Office |
| Montgomery |
| C. DARNELL JONES |
| Both |
| Diversity |
| 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
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
517
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS ADOPTED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AND DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION IS GRANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 2/11/15. 2/12/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mbh, )
|
|
Filing
499
ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 2/19/13. 2/20/13 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mbh, ) (Main Document 499 replaced on 2/20/2013) (mbh, ).
|
|
Filing
230
ORDER THAT DEFENDANT TUMBL TRAK'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. CORNELL UNIVERSITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. CORNELL UNIVERSITY'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES IS DENIED. THE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER DATED 4/20/12 REMAINS IN FORCE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 7/31/12. 7/31/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mbh, )
|
|
Filing
203
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANT CORNELL UNIVERSITY'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH APPLICABLE LAW (DOC. NO. 170), PLAINTIFF RANDALL DUCHESNEAU'S PARTIAL OPPOSITION THERE TO (DOC. NO. 176), CORNELL'S REPLY (DOC. NO. 185), AND PLAINTIFF'S SURREPLY (DOC. NO. 194); CORNELL'S MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE LYNNE A. SITARSKI ON 11/22/2011. 11/23/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas)
|
|
Filing
104
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE ISSUE OF REASONABLE ROYALTIES UNDER THE CALIFORNIA UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT, WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY PURSUANT TO THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNTIED STATES CONSTITUTION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 4/28/2011. 4/29/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas) FILED IN ERROR on 4/29/2011 (amas).
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER THAT DEFENDANT CORNELL UNIVERSITY'S MOTION TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL DISCRETE RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION NOS. 2-5, 7, 9, AND 19-22 (DOC. NO. 32) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE LYNNE A. SITARSKI ON 10/19/2010. 10/20/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER THAT: DEFT CORNELL UNIVERSITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(2) AND (3), OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TRANSFER THIS ACTION TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IS DENIED; DEFT TUMBLTRAK'S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(3) IS DENIED. A FED.R.CIV.P. 16 CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD BY TELEPHONE ON 12/3/09, AT 11:30, ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 9/30/09. 10/1/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(fb)
|
|
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANT CORNELL UNIVERSITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TRANSFER TO US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NY IS GRANTED; DEFENDANT TUBLETRAK'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED; THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO TRANSFER THIS ACTION THE USDC FOR THE ND OF NY AND THEREAFTER MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 2/26/2009. 3/3/2009 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ap, )
|
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 Pennsylvania Eastern 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.
