Hinkle et al v. Continental Motors Inc et al
Robert Hinkle, John Michael Skinner, Dawn Skinner and Brenda Hinkle |
Continental Motors Inc, Continental Motors Services Inc, Cirrus Design Corporation, Cirrus Industries Inc, Custom Sensors & Technologies and Kavlico Corp |
9:2016cv03707 |
November 22, 2016 |
US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
Beaufort Office |
XUS, Outside State |
Richard M Gergel |
Airplane Product Liability |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 44 ORDER AND OPINION The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Kavlico's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 27 ). The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE counts 13 (breach of contract) and 15 (fraud) of the complaint. Count 14 (breac h of warranty) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE only as to any claims arising from an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The motion to dismiss is otherwise DENIED. The Court STRIKES Plaintiff's prayer for attorney's fees from each count of the complaint. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 10/19/2017.(sshe, ) |
Filing 42 ORDER AND OPINION granting 28 Defendants Continental Motors Inc and Continental Motors Services Motion to Dismiss. Continental Motors, Inc. and Continental Motors Services are DISMISSED from this action. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 10/12/2017.(sshe, ) |
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 South Carolina 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.