Lo v. United States of America et al

Plaintiff: Ka Wai Jimmy Lo
Defendant: United States of America, United States Postal Service, Christian Tanuyan and Jane Doe Tanuyan
Case Number: 2:2017cv01202
Filed: August 9, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Washington
Office: Seattle Office
County: King
Presiding Judge: Richard A Jones
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
May 16, 2023 Filing 186 ORDER granting in part Plaintiff's 182 Motion for the Court to Review of Taxation of Costs. The award of costs to the Government is reduced to a revised total of $3,205.51. Signed by Judge Tana Lin. (LH)
February 15, 2023 Filing 174 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Court AWARDS Mr. Lo total overall damages of $204,296.20. The Court AWARDS Mr. Lo judgment against the Government, which shall be entered separately. Signed by Judge Tana Lin. (LH)
June 16, 2022 Filing 160 ORDER re Parties' 159 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Post-Trial Deadlines. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and supplemental Trial Brief to be submitted by 6/24/2022, Defendant's objection to any evidence of back surgery due by 6/29/2022, Plaintiff's response to objection due by 7/5/2022. Signed by Judge Tana Lin. (LH)
May 5, 2022 Filing 141 PRETRIAL ORDER signed by Judge Tana Lin. (LH)
April 5, 2022 Filing 129 ORDER Regarding the Parties' Daubert Motions and Motions in Limine. Plaintiff's motion to exclude the expert testimony of Drs. Dagher and Bays (Dkt. No. 65 ) is DENIED; the Government's motion to strike and exclude th e expert testimony of Ms. Johnson (Dkt. No. 69 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; Plaintiff's motions in limine (Dkt. No. 99 ) are DENIED; and the Government's motions in limine (Dkt. No. 101 ) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by Judge Tana Lin. (LH)
March 30, 2022 Filing 128 ORDER Regarding Judicial Settlement Conference. Counsel for Plaintiff, Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendant are ORDERED TO APPEAR: 4/13/2022 at 9:30 am. Each party shall email a separate settlement memo to Judge Tsuchida's in-court clerk by 1:00 pm on 4/8/2022. Signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida. (MW)
March 21, 2022 Filing 125 ORDER granting Plaintiff's 117 Motion to Amend the Claim Amount. Signed by Judge Tana Lin. (LH)
March 4, 2022 Filing 116 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 94 Motion to Amend, without prejudice. Should Plaintiff choose to move to amend one final time, Plaintiff shall re-move to amend his claim amount within five (5) days of this Order. Signed by Judge Tana Lin. (LH)
February 7, 2022 Filing 114 ORDER granting Plaintiff Counsel Reid's 110 Corrected Motion for Withdrawal of Attorney. Signed by Judge Tana Lin. (LH)
November 12, 2021 Filing 93 ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 57 Motion to Amend. Plaintiff may file an amended motion consistent with this Order within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (SR)
November 4, 2021 Filing 92 ORDER granting Plaintiff's 63 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 67 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (SR)
November 3, 2021 Filing 91 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 71 Motion to Exclude and Strike Expert Opinions of Sanford Wright, M.D. The Court STRIKES Dr. Wright's supplemental report in its entirety. The Court EXCLUDES the following o pinions: 1. Dr. Wright's opinions regarding the reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiffs medical bills; 2. Dr. Wright's opinions regarding Plaintiff's alleged hip injury and mental health condition; 3. Dr. Wright&#03 9;s opinions regarding Plaintiff's alleged Complex Regional Pain Syndrome; and 4. Dr. Wright's opinions regarding the causation between Plaintiff's alleged hip injury, mental health condition, and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (SR)
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: Lo v. United States of America et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ka Wai Jimmy Lo
Represented By: Michael Reid
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: United States of America
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: United States Postal Service
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: Christian Tanuyan
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: Jane Doe Tanuyan
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?