Hughes v. Hughes et al
| Karen Hughes and Frank Hughes |
| Sears, Roebuck and Co., Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., John Doe and John Logar |
| 2:2009cv00093 |
| July 29, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia |
| Elkins Office |
| Barbour |
| John Preston Bailey |
| Both |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| Both |
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
176
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER denying 150 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order but granting some other relief requested. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert on 7/7/11. (jss)
|
|
Filing
157
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 115 Motion/Application for Award of Attorneys' Fees in the amount of $2,668.00. Objections may be filed within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert on 6/30/11. (cnd)
|
|
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 65 Motion to Exclude Testimony of David J. Bizzak. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert on 12/16/10. (cnd)
|
|
Filing
79
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' 56 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert on 12/2/10. (jss)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER granting 6 Motion to Sever as to John Logar, MD and it is remanded to the Circuit Court of Barbour County; denying 10 Motion to Remand claims against the remaining non-diverse defendants. (copy to Barbour County Circuit Court) Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 9/3/09. (jss)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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.
