BUDDY'S PLANT PLUS CORP. v. CENTIMARK CORPORATION
| BUDDY'S PLANT PLUS CORP. |
| CENTIMARK CORPORATION |
| 2:2010cv00670 |
| May 17, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Robert C. Mitchell |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
313
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re MOTION for Reconsideration re 264 Order filed by CENTIMARK CORPORATION, 278 MOTION for New Trial filed by CENTIMARK CORPORATION, 270 Renewed MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law First filed by CENTIMARK CORPORATION, 272 Renewed MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Second filed by CENTIMARK CORPORATION. CentiMarks motion for judgment as a matter of law 270 is DENIED; CentiMarks motion for judgment as a matter of law 272 is DENIED; CentiMarks motion for a new trial [ECF No. 278] is DENIED; CentiMarks motion for reconsideration of the 264 Order denying the oral motion to mold the verdict 295 is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 3/31/2014. (ajt)
|
|
Filing
234
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART re 192 Ninth MOTION in Limine filed by CENTIMARK CORPORATION, 186 Sixth MOTION in Limine filed by CENTIMARK CORPORATION, 174 MOTION in Limine TO E XCLUDE THE EXPERT CONDENSATION TESTIMONY OF CENTIMARK CORPORATIONS PROFFERED EXPERT WITNESS BRIAN NEAL JAKS filed by BUDDY'S PLANT PLUS CORPORATION, 176 First MOTION in Limine Omnibus filed by CENTIMARK CORPORATION, 184 Fif th MOTION in Limine filed by CENTIMARK CORPORATION, 194 Tenth MOTION in Limine filed by CENTIMARK CORPORATION, 180 Third MOTION in Limine filed by CENTIMARK CORPORATION, 170 MOTION in Limine TO PRECLUDE CENTIMARK FROM ARGUING OR INTRODUCING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL THAT AN ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROOF ENDLAPS ON THE BUDDYS FACILITY CAUSED CENTIMARKS REPAIRS TO FAIL filed by BUDDY'S PLANT PLUS CORPORATION, 188 Seventh MOTIO N in Limine filed by CENTIMARK CORPORATION, 182 Fourth MOTION in Limine filed by CENTIMARK CORPORATION, 178 Second MOTION in Limine filed by CENTIMARK CORPORATION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 10/18/2013. (ajt)
|
|
Filing
157
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re 103 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CENTIMARK CORPORATION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 1/16/2013. (ajt)
|
|
Filing
151
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re 150 Order on Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 10/24/2012. (cms)
|
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 Western 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: BUDDY'S PLANT PLUS CORP. v. CENTIMARK CORPORATION | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: BUDDY'S PLANT PLUS CORP. | |
| Represented By: | Fernando M Bustos |
| 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: CENTIMARK CORPORATION | |
| Represented By: | David S Coale |
| 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.
