Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

15-277 - Jones, Jr. et al v. Praxair, Inc. et al

Download Files


Document in Context
15-277 - Jones, Jr. et al v. Praxair, Inc. et al
March 7, 2016
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - 1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss In Part 6 be granted, in part, and Plaintiffs' Fourth Claim be dismissed without prejudice subject to renewal, if warranted, as the remedy of punitive damages; 2) Defendants' Motion To Dismiss In Part 6 be otherwise denied; and 3) Defendants' Motion To Strike In Part Certain Paragraphs Therefrom 6 be granted as to paragraphs six and seven of the complaint, and be otherwise denied. Objections to R&R due by 3/24/2016. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 3/7/16. (mcm)
June 28, 2016
PDF | More
renewal as a possible remedy, if warranted. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 9 are STRICKEN from the Complaint. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 6/27/2016. (srb)DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS PRAXAIR, INC.'S AND ANTHONY W. CROSSLEY'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. # 28); ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART UNITED STATES CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. # 27); SUSTAINING MOTION OF DEFENDANTS PRAXAIR, INC. AND ANTHONY W. CROSSLEY PURSUANT TO RULES 12(b) AND 12(f) TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN PART AND TO STRIKE CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS THEREFROM (DOC. # 6) - More specifically, Claim Two, asserting claims of negligence and negligence per se against Defendant Praxair, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Claim Four, asserting a claim for punitive damages against both Defendants, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to
January 18, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: TERMINATION ENTRY- The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above matter has been settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice as to the parties, provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within 60 days, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. Parties intending to preserve this Court's jurisdiction to enforce the settlement should be aware of Kokkonen v. Guardian L{fe Ins. Co. of America, 114 S.Ct. 1673 ( 1994), and incorporate appropriate language in any substituted judgment entry. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement between the parties, if necessary.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 1/18/17. (kma)