O'Keefe et al v. Noble Drilling Corporation d/b/a Noble Drilling Services Inc. et al
| 3:2005cv00688 |
| December 28, 2005 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Texas |
| Galveston Office |
| Samuel B Kent |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1333 Admiralty |
| 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
183
ORDER GRANTING 154 MOTION to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens and Motion to Reconsider the Denial of the Noble Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens, Case terminated on 8/13/08.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(sanderson, )
|
|
Filing
123
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 117 Motion to Compel.( Signed by Judge John R Froeschner ) Parties notified.(amaly, )
|
|
Filing
114
OPINION AND ORDER Motion-related deadline set re: 109 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens of Schlumberger/Brazil; Noble's Responses due by 3/21/2008, Schlumberger/Brazil's Replies due by 4/4/2008.( Signed by Judge John R Froeschner ) Parties notified.(sanderson, )
|
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 Texas Southern 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: O'Keefe et al v. Noble Drilling Corporation d/b/a Noble Drilling Services Inc. et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
