Herron v. APAC of Tennessee, Inc., 3:16-cv-127-DPM. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20190125929
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jan. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . 1. The Court appreciates and approves the parties' stipulation, N o 275, about cross claims and counterclaims. 2. The following claims are dismissed without prejudice and with the specified caveat: • Wabash's cross claim against APAC and Superior Traffic, N o 79; • Superior Traffic's counterclaim and cross claim against Charles Jeff Gardner, administrator of the estate of Nicholas McGuire, N o 82; • Superior Traffic's cros
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . 1. The Court appreciates and approves the parties' stipulation, N o 275, about cross claims and counterclaims. 2. The following claims are dismissed without prejudice and with the specified caveat: • Wabash's cross claim against APAC and Superior Traffic, N o 79; • Superior Traffic's counterclaim and cross claim against Charles Jeff Gardner, administrator of the estate of Nicholas McGuire, N o 82; • Superior Traffic's cross..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, JR., District Judge.
1. The Court appreciates and approves the parties' stipulation, No 275, about cross claims and counterclaims.
2. The following claims are dismissed without prejudice and with the specified caveat:
• Wabash's cross claim against APAC and Superior Traffic, No 79;
• Superior Traffic's counterclaim and cross claim against Charles Jeff Gardner, administrator of the estate of Nicholas McGuire, No 82;
• Superior Traffic's cross claim against Wabash, APAC, Best, Phillips, and Adams, No 83;
• Best's cross claim against APAC and Superior Traffic, No 91;
• Phillips and Adams's cross claim against APAC and Superior Traffic, No 92;
• APAC's counterclaim and cross claim against Charles Jeff Gardner, administrator of the estate of Nicholas McGuire, No 94; and
• APAC's cross claim against Superior Traffic, Phillips, Adams, Best, and Wabash, No 95.
All remaining defendants' other cross claims and counterclaims remain pending for adjudication.
3. The caveat: If the Court's 17 January 2019 Order, No 272, is appealed, reversed, and the case is remanded, or if APAC or Superior Traffic otherwise becomes a party to this suit again in the future, all the defendants agree they will not assert the statute of limitations, the statute of repose, laches, or any other defense based on the timing of any re-asserted cross claim or counterclaim covered by the stipulation and this Order.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
