• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
36,971 results

No. 1327 DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING PLAINTIFFS, HOBART CORPORATION, ET AL.'S MOTION FOR TIME TO TAKE ...

Document Hobart Corporation et al v. The Dayton Power and Light Company et al, 3:13-cv-00115, No. 1327 (S.D.Ohio Jan. 31, 2025)
On December 16, 2024, ConAgra filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, disputing their liability for actions carried out after 1968.
One key basis for this request was Plaintiffs' concern that ConAgra's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was based on a new and surprising argument of faulty successorship.
Moreover, this Court previously recognized in a September 23, 2019, decision denying summary judgment that "ConAgra admits that it is the successor in interest to McCall Corporation, a large commercial printing company. "
While this Court is hesitant to reopen discovery that has long since been concluded, a careful analysis of the present situation under Rule 56(d) calls for such a finding in the interest of justice.
Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion for Time to Take Discovery from Defendant ConAgra Grocery Products LLC is SUSTAINED.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1297 DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART PLAINTIFFS HOBART CORPORATION, ...

Document Hobart Corporation et al v. The Dayton Power and Light Company et al, 3:13-cv-00115, No. 1297 (S.D.Ohio Sep. 24, 2024)
This Court previously ruled on motions filed by Defendants Valley Asphalt Corporation, Doc. #1215, Sherwin-Williams Company, Doc. #1218, and Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Doc. 1219.
LEXIS 123978, *3 (E. D. Mich. Oct. 26, 2011) (citations omitted) (collecting cases listing conflict of interest, illness, and incarceration as unforeseen circumstances justifying substitution of an expert)
Defendants strongly oppose this addition, arguing that this Court's prior rejection of Dr. Marshall White in 2020 caused parties to be dismissed and witnesses to be released such that reversing course now would create havoc in the case.
Based upon this decision, and the resulting absence of evidence connecting hazardous substances with the burning of the pallets, this Court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the liability of Container Services, Inc. Doc, #1177, PagelD ##45097-98.
In so doing, this Court ruled that the lack of expert testimony concerning whether the burning of pallets results in a "disposal" of hazardous material under CERCLA justified the dismissal of Container Services.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1291 DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING DEFENDANT VALLEY ASPHALT CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRODUCE ...

Document Hobart Corporation et al v. The Dayton Power and Light Company et al, 3:13-cv-00115, No. 1291 (S.D.Ohio Sep. 3, 2024)
Mich. Oct. 26, 2011) (citations omitted) (collecting cases listing conflict of interest, illness, and incarceration as unforeseen circumstances justifying substitution of an expert) .
Dr. Gerbig worked with Dr. Ram before the latter's retirement and assisted in writing the report for Valley Asphalt, albeit by drafting a relatively minor section.
According to Valley Asphalt, Dr. Gerbig's involvement with the initial report, as well as the deposition that occurred in October 2018, will restrain his testimony closely to the original opinions offered by Dr. Ram.
As expressed by this Court in the Entry setting forth the standards for this issue, Dr. Ram's retirement and the expiration of his credentials alone would not be sufficient to justify substituting an expert witness.
However, Dr. Ram's health issues, when added to the retirement and expiration of credentials, persuade this Court that it is appropriate to permit Valley Asphalt to substitute Dr. Gerbig.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1289 ORDER granting 1286 Joint MOTION for Filing of Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiffs and ...

Document Hobart Corporation et al v. The Dayton Power and Light Company et al, 3:13-cv-00115, No. 1289 (S.D.Ohio Aug. 29, 2024)
This matter having come before the Court on the Joint Motion for filing of a Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC with the amount of the settlement amount redacted ("Motion"), and any response thereto, it is hereby
The Motion is GRANTED.
The Proposed Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC may be filed with the Court with the proposed settlement amount being redacted.
The Proposed Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC shall be provided in an unredacted form to any party in this Action, and may be provided to the United States EPA or Ohio EPA upon request of United States EPA or Ohio EPA.
4) The redaction of the settlement amount is subject to further Order of this Court, to further order of a Court of competent jurisdiction, and subject to the understanding that certain limited disclosures by the parties in this action in an unredacted form may be necessary for legal purposes.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1290

Document Hobart Corporation et al v. The Dayton Power and Light Company et al, 3:13-cv-00115, No. 1290 (S.D.Ohio Aug. 29, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 937912281

Document CITIMORTGAGE INC vs GERALD F BELL, 2012 CV 05047, No. 937912281 (Ohio State, Montgomery County, Court of Common Pleas Jun. 12, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 291614221

Document CITIMORTGAGE INC vs GERALD F BELL, 2012 CV 05047, No. 291614221 (Ohio State, Montgomery County, Court of Common Pleas Jun. 11, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1263

Document Hobart Corporation et al v. The Dayton Power and Light Company et al, 3:13-cv-00115, No. 1263 (S.D.Ohio May. 6, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>