Shelbyville Hospital Corporation d/b/a Heritage Medical Center v. Mosley
| Shelbyville Hospital Corporation d/b/a Heritage Medical Center |
| E. Wayne Mosley |
| 4:2013cv00088 |
| December 17, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee |
| Winchester Office |
| Bedford |
| William B Carter |
| Harry S Mattice |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
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
242
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION finding that Shelbyville Hospital fails to meet is burden as the movant for reconsideration under Rule 54(b). Shelbyville Hospitals 235 Motion for Reconsideration [doc. 235] is therefore DENIED. Shelbyville Hospitals 236 Motion for Oral Argument is also DENIED. Signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on 1/29/2018. (MDG)
|
|
Filing
233
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on 11/20/2017. (JDH)
|
|
Filing
225
MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on 5/24/2017. (JDH)
|
|
Filing
201
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION finding that Shelbyville Hospital fails to meet its burden to justify reopening discovery, and therefore its 197 Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Documents. Signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on 3/27/2017. (c/m)(MDG)
|
|
Filing
173
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION finding that the Defendants 137 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; the Hospitals 140 Motion for Summary Judgment on its Breach of Contract Claim is GRANTED, except as to damages; the Hospitals 143 Mo tion for Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiffs Defenses for Fraud and Misrepresentation is hereby GRANTED. The Plaintiff will submit proof of its damages no later than April 8, 2016. Defendant shall respond with any objections no later than May 23, 2016. A hearing on damages will be scheduled thereafter. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks recovery of attorneys fees, it shall submit a separate motion in accordance with Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on 2/10/2016. (MGM)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 32 defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, whereby Dr. Mosley's counterclaims of breach of contract, intentional interference with a business relationship, and unjust enrichment are DISMISSED and the claims of fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation will remain pending. Signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on November 24, 2014. (AYB)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Shelbyville Hospital Corporation d/b/a Heritage Medical Center v. Mosley | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Shelbyville Hospital Corporation d/b/a Heritage Medical Center | |
| Represented By: | William M Outhier |
| 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: E. Wayne Mosley | |
| 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.
