Deeds v. Whirlpool Corporation et al
| Judith Deeds and David Deeds |
| Whirlpool Corporation and Sears Roebuck & Co. |
| 4:2015cv02208 |
| July 31, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Texas |
| Houston Office |
| Harris |
| Melinda Harmon |
| Personal Injury- Product Liability |
| 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
57
OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL, denying 50 Motion; for reconsideration, denying 54 Motion for Oral Hearing. the Court reaffirms its grant of Defendants first motion for summary judgment, the Court VACATES Magistrate Judge Stacys order (#24) gr anting leave to Plaintiffs to file a first amended complaint and strikes that complaint for lack of diligence as a matter of law,the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (#50); and(the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for oral hearing (#54).This case is DISMISSED..(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(jdav, 4)
|
|
Filing
42
OPINION AND ORDER The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs file within twenty days an amended complaint that satisfies the law and the pleading requirements for their warranty claims, if they can. They shall include an explanation why they did not meet Rule 26&# 039;s requirements for their non-retained experts and why they should be allowed to try to cure their deficiencies. Defendants shall file a timely response. The scheduled dates for the pretrial order, docket call, and trial are VACATED. The Court further ORDERS that 22 Defendants second motion for summary judgment is DENIED as premature without prejudice to reasserting the arguments if and after Plaintiffs file the ordered amended pleading; 28 Defendants motion for continuance of trial se tting is GRANTED for the reasons stated herein, but the Court will establish a new docket control schedule, if appropriate, after it reviews Plaintiffs ordered third amended complaint and Defendants responsive pleading; 35 Defendants motion for pro tective order is DENIED as some discovery will be permitted, but new discovery should not be sought until the Court establishes a new schedule; 32 Defendants second motion to compel discovery requests that were timely made in its first motion (#11) is GRANTED and that discovery may be provided now; and 34 Plaintiffs Rule 26 motion for protective order is MOOT in light of the above orders.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(rhawkins)
|
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
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.
