Taylor v. Hughes

Taylor v. Hughes

Plaintiff:	Scott W. Taylor
Defendant:	Alphonso Hughes
Case Number:	1:2012cv00138
Filed:	January 24, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Office:	Harrisburg Office
County:	Adams
Presiding Judge:	John E. Jones
Nature of Suit:	Other
Cause of Action:	49 U.S.C. § 781
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
February 27, 2013	Filing 66 MEMORANDUM (eo)
September 20, 2012	Filing 40 MEMORANDUM OPINION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Petitioners motion for an extension of time to complete discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 33.) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the stay imposed by this Courts prior order (Doc. 32.) is LIFTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the following briefing schedule shall apply to Respondents motion for summary judgment: 1. Petitioner shall file a brief in opposition to the motion, together with a counterstatemen t of material facts pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, on or before Monday, October 8, 2012. 2. Respondent shall be permitted to file a reply brief in further support of its motion for summary judgment within 14 days of the date on which Petitioners oppos ition brief is filed. 3. All briefs must comport with the requirements prescribed by Local Rule 7.8. 4. No additional briefing other than that provided for in this order shall be permitted without leave of court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on September 20, 2012. (kjn )

Date Filed

Document Text

February 27, 2013

Filing 66 MEMORANDUM (eo)

September 20, 2012

Filing 40 MEMORANDUM OPINION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Petitioners motion for an extension of time to complete discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 33.) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the stay imposed by this Courts prior order (Doc. 32.) is LIFTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the following briefing schedule shall apply to Respondents motion for summary judgment: 1. Petitioner shall file a brief in opposition to the motion, together with a counterstatemen t of material facts pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, on or before Monday, October 8, 2012. 2. Respondent shall be permitted to file a reply brief in further support of its motion for summary judgment within 14 days of the date on which Petitioners oppos ition brief is filed. 3. All briefs must comport with the requirements prescribed by Local Rule 7.8. 4. No additional briefing other than that provided for in this order shall be permitted without leave of court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on September 20, 2012. (kjn )

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Taylor v. Hughes
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Scott W. Taylor
Represented By:	Scott L. Braum
Represented By:	William John Fulton
Represented By:	Timothy R. Rudd
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: Alphonso Hughes
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.

Why Is My Information Online?