Beard v. Mighty Lift, Inc.
Plaintiff: Albert Beard
Defendant: Mighty Lift Inc
Case Number: 2:2015cv01464
Filed: September 14, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Washington
Office: Seattle Office
County: King
Presiding Judge: James L. Robart
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury- Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
December 19, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDER by Judge James L. Robart granting Defendant's 31 Motion for Summary Judgment. Mighty Lift's 24 Motion to compel is denied as moot; Mr. Beard's 34 Motion to limit testimony is denied as moot. (PM)
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 Washington Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Beard v. Mighty Lift, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Albert Beard
Represented By: Daniel Ross Fjelstad
Represented By: Brian D. Scott
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: Mighty Lift Inc
Represented By: Brendan Hanrahan
Represented By: Matthew R Wojcik
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?