• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 69-83 of 158 results

No. 299 RESPONSE in Opposition re 290 MOTION to Strike 284 Corrected MOTION for Summary Judgment , ...

Document Deakin v. Magellan Health, Inc., et al, 1:17-cv-00773, No. 299 (D.N.M. Nov. 10, 2022)
Motion to Strike
... that “[n]o further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances;” and explaining that that while the defense counsel’s explanation fell “short of that mark,” “the Court’s response must, nonetheless, ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Armijo et al v. Board of County Commissioners of San Miguel County

Docket 1:13-cv-00839, New Mexico District Court (Sept. 4, 2013)
Judge James O. Browning, presiding, Carmen E. Garza
Labor - Fair Labor Standards Act
DivisionAlbuquerque
DemandPlaintiff
Cause29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Case Type710 Labor - Fair Labor Standards Act
Tags710 Labor, Fair Labor Standards Act, 710 Labor, Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff Sean Armijo
Plaintiff Derrick Duran
Plaintiff James Duran
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 70 AMENDED ORDER OF REFERENCE by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales

Document Candelaria v. Health Care Service Corporation, 2:17-cv-00404, No. 70 (D.N.M. Aug. 11, 2020)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B), (b)(3), and Va. Beach Fed. Sav.
& Loan Ass’n v. Wood, 901 F.2d 849 (10th Cir. 1990), this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar to conduct a hearing and to perform any legal analysis required to recommend to the Court whether to enter an order granting final approval of the class settlement agreement.
The Magistrate Judge will submit an analysis, including findings of fact, if necessary, and recommended disposition, to the District Judge assigned to the case, with copies provided to the parties.
The parties will be given the opportunity to object to the proposed findings, analysis, and disposition as described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the proposed disposition.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 205 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief District Judge William P. Johnson GRANTING IN PART AND ...

Document Munoz v. John Doe Corporations, 1:17-cv-00881, No. 205 (D.N.M. Aug. 5, 2020)
Motion to Exclude TestimonyPartial
This lawsuit is a products liability case arising from the apparent failure of an airbag to deploy during a car accident while Plaintiff was working as an employee of the United States Forest Service.
In the instant motion, Defendant seeks to exclude what it alleges is certain impermissible expert and opinion testimony of two treating doctors with the Veteran’s Administration (“VA”), Dr. Candyce Tart and Dr. Richard Lanzi (“VA doctors”).
2, 1993 Amendments for Rule 26(a)(2); see Duran v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No. CV 13-608 WJ/SCY, 2014 WL 12601509, at *2 (D.N.M. Aug. 13, 2014) (denying defendant’s motion to strike expert disclosure for failing to provide written report, citing D.N.M.LR-Civ.
Fielden v. CSX Transp., Inc., 482 F.3d 866, 870 (6th Cir. 2007), as amended on denial of reh'g and reh'g en banc (July 2, 2007) (“It is within the normal range of duties for a health care provider to develop opinions regarding causation and prognosis during the ordinary course of an examination ... .”) (citing McCloughan v. City of Springfield, 208 F.R.D.
A diagnosis of TBI is not one that would be based on mere observation and assessment by a treating physician who is an internist without that doctor first being identified as an expert whose testimony can be scrutinized for reliability and qualifications under the Federal Rules of Evidence and under Daubert.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 254 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 247 MOTION for Protective Order as to Plaintiff's Noticed 30(b)(6) ...

Document Deakin v. Magellan Health, Inc., et al, 1:17-cv-00773, No. 254 (D.N.M. Sep. 7, 2022)
Motion for Protective Order
However, as a threshold matter, Plaintiffs wish to clarify that none of the topics are intended to extend beyond the individuals that have opted into this case and the members of the proposed Rule 23 Classes.
However, Topic Nos. 10-13 only relate to factual matters, not legal theories, and none of them reference affidavit testimony.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 68 ORDER OF REFERRAL by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales referring 61 Unopposed Motion to Approve ...

Document Candelaria v. Health Care Service Corporation, 2:17-cv-00404, No. 68 (D.N.M. Jul. 8, 2020)
SINGLETON and all others similarly situated under 29 USC § 216(b),
& Loan Ass’n v. Wood, 901 F.2d 849 (10th Cir. 1990), this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar to conduct hearings, if warranted, including evidentiary hearings, and to perform any legal analysis required to recommend to the Court an ultimate disposition of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement (Doc. 61).
The Magistrate Judge will submit an analysis, including findings of fact, if necessary, and recommended disposition, to the District Judge assigned to the case, with copies provided to the parties.
The parties will be given the opportunity to object to the proposed findings, analysis, and disposition as described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the proposed disposition.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 67

Document Candelaria v. Health Care Service Corporation, 2:17-cv-00404, No. 67 (D.N.M. Jul. 8, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 358-1

Document Deakin v. Magellan Health, Inc., et al, 1:17-cv-00773, No. 358-1 (D.N.M. Sep. 6, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Pallotino, et al v. City of Rio Rancho, et al

Docket 10-2170, U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (July 29, 2010)
Civil Rights - Other (Appeals)

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Pallotino, et al v. City of Rio Rancho, et al

Docket 10-2243, U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (July 29, 2010)
Civil Rights - Other (Appeals)

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 356-1

Document Deakin v. Magellan Health, Inc., et al, 1:17-cv-00773, No. 356-1 (D.N.M. Aug. 26, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 195

Document Deakin v. Magellan Health, Inc., et al, 1:17-cv-00773, No. 195 (D.N.M. Oct. 28, 2021)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 189

Document Deakin v. Magellan Health, Inc., et al, 1:17-cv-00773, No. 189 (D.N.M. Oct. 13, 2021)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 64

Document Candelaria v. Health Care Service Corporation, 2:17-cv-00404, No. 64 (D.N.M. Mar. 5, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 169

Document Munoz v. John Doe Corporations, 1:17-cv-00881, No. 169 (D.N.M. Feb. 21, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>