Rhodes et al v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company
Case Number: 6:2006cv00530
Filed: June 29, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Office: P.I.: Other Office
Presiding Judge: Joseph R. Goodwin
Presiding Judge: Mary E. Stanley
Nature of Suit: Both
Cause of Action: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
October 16, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 460 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 350 MOTION to Amend Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 10/16/2009. (cc: attys) (gan)
September 28, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 454 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot plaintiffs' 277 MOTION for Class Certification; denying defendant's 279 MOTION for Summary Judgment Based Upon Statute of Limitations; granting in part and denying in part defendant's [3 35] MOTION for Summary Judgment. The motion is denied with respect to plaintiffs' Sixth Count claim, and is granted with respect to plaintiffs' First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Seventh Count claims. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 9/28/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party; published on the court's website at www.wvsd.uscourts.gov) (jkk) Modified title of entry on 9/28/2009 (jkk).
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 West Virginia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rhodes et al v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?