Mullinex et al v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation et al
| Herbert H. Mullinex, Jr. and Patricia E. Mullinex |
| Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Crane Co., Gardner Denver, Inc., IMO Industries, Inc., John Crane, Inc., Spirax Sarco, Inc., Waco, Inc., Warren Pumps, Inc., Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc., 3M Company and Cleaver-Brooks Company, Inc. |
| Crane Co., Gardner Denver, Inc., Spirax Sarco, Inc., Waco, Inc. and Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc. |
| 4:2018cv00033 |
| March 23, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Newport News Office |
| Newport News City |
| Arenda L. Wright Allen |
| Robert J. Krask |
| Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1446 |
| 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
601
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 590, on the issue of liability. See Order for specific details. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 11/8/22. (mrees, )
|
|
Filing
595
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 588 Motion for Leave to File Corrected Answer to Third Amended Complaint. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 10/28/22. (jhie, )
|
|
Filing
581
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's 559 Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff shall file a statement of attorney's fees and costs within 30 days of the date of this Order. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 10/24/22. (mrees, ) Modified text on 10/24/2022 (mrees, ).
|
|
Filing
544
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 481 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claim for Survival Damages. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 6/10/22. (mrees, )
|
|
Filing
539
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Objection is SUSTAINED IN PART, and Judge Miller's Order at ECF No. 389 is VACATED IN PART. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 5/23/22. (mrees, )
|
|
Filing
533
ORDER: The Court adopts and affirms the findings in U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller's Report and Recommendations 350 , 351 , and 352 . The parties' objections are overruled. The Court affirms Judge Miller's orders at ECF No s. 333, 348, and 353. the parties motions and objections to those orders 349 , 363 , 376 , 377 , 378 , 379 , 380 , 381 , 382 , 383 , 384 , and 387 are denied and overruled, respectively. The Court affirms Judge Miller's rulings rega rding the parties' motions and objections at 416 and 418 . See Magistrate Order, ECF No. 389. Those motions and objections are denied and overruled, respectively. The Court vacates its bench ruling regarding ECF No. 481. The Court's ruling on the motion is forthcoming. The Court's ruling on all outstanding motions and objections not resolved by this Order are forthcoming. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 5/19/22. (mrees, )
|
|
Filing
155
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs' objections are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge's order is AFFIRMED, ECF No 129. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 4/27/20. (afar)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER - The Court, having reviewed the record and making de novo findings regarding the positions of the R&R objected to, ADOPTS AND APPROVES the findings and recommendations set forth in the Reports and Recommendations (ECF Nos. 45 and 46). It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 37) is DENIED and Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand (ECF No. 19) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen on 2/20/2019. (dcou, )
|
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 Virginia 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
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.
