Lufkin v. Thomas Hamilton et al
Plaintiff: David A Lufkin, Sr
Defendant: Thomas Hamilton, Culver Schmid, John A Lucas, Dennis Daniels, Randy Nichols, American Lawyers Quarterly, Long Ragsdale & Waters, PC, Hunton & Williams, LLP, The State of Tennessee and Knox County, Tennessee
Case Number: 3:2009cv00010
Filed: January 9, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Office: Civil Rights: Other Office
County: Knox
Presiding Judge: H Bruce Guyton
Presiding Judge: Thomas W Phillips
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 11, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 78 AMENDED ORDER dismissing this lawsuit without prejudice as to all defendants, with leave for the plaintiff to re-file if the Tennessee Claims Commission determines that the state employees or officials acted outside the scope of the ir employment. Accordingly, the court makes the following rulings: Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 15 is DENIED; Defendant Culver Schmid's Motion to Dismiss Based on Absolute/Qualified Immunity 21 is DENIED AS MOOT; Defe ndant Long Ragsdale & Waters, PC's Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim 24 is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendant John Lucas's and Hunton & Williams LLP's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 31 is DEN IED AS MOOT; Defendant John Lucas's and Hunton & Williams LLP's Motion for Hearing Regarding their Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 33 is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendants Thomas Hamilton's and American Lawyers Quarterly' s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 34 is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendant Dennis Daniels's Motion to Dismiss 36 is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendant State of Tennessee's Motion to Dismiss 38 is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendant Randy Nichols&# 039;s Motion to Dismiss 40 is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Pleadings Filed by the State of Tennessee 44 is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply 63 is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiff's Mot ion to Strike 64 is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Amendment 67 is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendants Dennis Daniels's, Randy Nichols's, and the State of Tennessee's Second Motion to Dismiss Based on Waiver 70 is GRANTED; and Plaintiff's Motion for Protection and for Order Compelling Discovery 75 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on March 10, 2010. (copy mailed to Mr. Lufkin) (AYB)
March 10, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 77 ORDER dismissing this lawsuit without prejudice as to all defendants, with leave for the plaintiff to re-file if the Tennessee Claims Commission determines that the state employees or officials acted outside the scope of their emplo yment. Accordingly, the court makes the following rulings: Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 15 is DENIED; Defendant Culver Schmid's Motion to Dismiss Based on Absolute/Qualified Immunity 21 is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendant Lon g Ragsdale & Waters, PC's Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim 24 is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendant John Lucas's and Hunton & Williams LLP's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 31 is DENIED AS MO OT; Defendant John Lucas's and Hunton & Williams LLP's Motion for Hearing Regarding their Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 33 is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendant Dennis Daniels's Motion to Dismiss 36 is DENIED AS MOOT; Defen dant State of Tennessee's Motion to Dismiss 38 is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendant Randy Nichols's Motion to Dismiss 40 is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Pleadings Filed by the State of Tennessee 44 is DENIED AS MOOT; Plai ntiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply 63 is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiff's Motion to Strike 64 is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Amendment 67 is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendants Dennis Daniels's, Randy Nicho ls's, and the State of Tennessee's Second Motion to Dismiss Based on Waiver 70 is GRANTED; and Plaintiff's Motion for Protection and for Order Compelling Discovery 75 is DENIEDAS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on March 10, 2010. (copy mailed to Mr. Lufkin) (AYB)
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 Tennessee Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lufkin v. Thomas Hamilton et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: David A Lufkin, Sr
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: Thomas Hamilton
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: Culver Schmid
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: John A Lucas
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: Dennis Daniels
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: Randy Nichols
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: American Lawyers Quarterly
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: Long Ragsdale & Waters, PC
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: Hunton & Williams, LLP
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: The State of Tennessee
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: Knox County, Tennessee
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?