Holder, James v. Fraser Shipyards, Inc. et al
| James Holder |
| Fraser Shipyards, Inc., Northern Engineering Company, LLC and The Interlake Steamship Company |
| 3:2016cv00343 |
| May 25, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin |
| Madison Office |
| Douglas |
| William M. Conley |
| Stephen L. Crocker |
| Other Personal Injury |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
326
ORDER. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 04/20/2018. (DPM)
|
|
Filing
280
ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 205 Motions in Limine Nos. 1 - 7; granting in part, denying in part and reserving in part Capstan Corporation's 192 Motions in Limine; reserving on Capstan's 273 Motion for E xtension of Time for Filing a Supplemental Motion in Limine and Motion in Limine; denying Fraser Shipyards, Inc's 187 Motion in Limine or Alternatively to Sever Interlake Steamship Company's Cross-Claims while reserving on its 246 supp lemental request; granting Fraser's 275 Motion for Leave to File Reply; denying Fraser's 127 Motion to Sever; granting in part and denying in part Interlake Steamship Company's 198 Motion in Limine to Exclude the Opinion Testimo ny of John W. Sullivan; granting in part and denying in part Interlake's 221 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Measures; reserving in part and denying in part Interlake's 199 Motion in Limine to Exclude the Opi nion Testimony of Rachael M. Jones; denying Interlake's 186 Motion in Limine to Exclude Opinions of Dr. Parker and Dr. Crossen; denying 218 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Post-Employment Knowledge; denying 223 Motion in Limine to Exclude Equivalence Testimony and Argument; denying 225 Motion in Limine to Exclude Untimely Expert Opinion of Eric Pescinski; granting Interlake's 263 Motion to Join Capstan Corporation's 192 Motions in Limine; and granting 264 Motion to Join Plaintiff's 205 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 4/10/2018. (jls)
|
|
Filing
149
ORDER granting in part defendant Fraser's and denying as moot former defendant Northern's 50 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying defendant Capstan's 72 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying defendant Interlake's 78 Motion fo r Summary Judgment; granting plaintiff's 98 implicit request to amend the complaint and add explicitly his alternative state law claims. The amended complaint shall be filed within 10 days. Defendants need not answer except to respond to any newly asserted state law claims and to assert any additional, affirmative defenses specific to those claims; denying as moot plaintiff's 124 Motion to Disregard the New Evidence and Arguments Submitted in Defendant Fraser Shipyards, Inc.'s Reply Submissions; and reserving on defendant Fraser's 127 Motion to Sever. Trial will proceed on a trifurcated basis. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 1/17/2018. (jls)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER Regarding Jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall have until July 5, 2016 to serve an amended complaint containing good faith allegations sufficient to establish complete diversity of citizenship for purposes of determining subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332; failure to amend timely shall result in prompt dismissal of this matter. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/20/2016. (jls)
|
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 Wisconsin Western 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.
