THOMPSON v. AUTOLIV ASP, INC., 2:09-CV-01375-PMP-VCF. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20120705a69
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 03, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 03, 2012
Summary: ORDER PHILIP M. PRO, District Judge. Having read and considered Plaintiff's fully briefed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #126) and Defendants' fully briefed Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claim for Punitive Damages and on Plaintiff's Back Injury Claim (Docs. #127 & 128), and finding that genuine issues of material fact remain as to each of the claims at issue which warrant determination at trial, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion
Summary: ORDER PHILIP M. PRO, District Judge. Having read and considered Plaintiff's fully briefed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #126) and Defendants' fully briefed Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claim for Punitive Damages and on Plaintiff's Back Injury Claim (Docs. #127 & 128), and finding that genuine issues of material fact remain as to each of the claims at issue which warrant determination at trial, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion ..
More
ORDER
PHILIP M. PRO, District Judge.
Having read and considered Plaintiff's fully briefed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #126) and Defendants' fully briefed Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claim for Punitive Damages and on Plaintiff's Back Injury Claim (Docs. #127 & 128), and finding that genuine issues of material fact remain as to each of the claims at issue which warrant determination at trial, and good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #126) and Defendants' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claim for Punitive Damages and on Plaintiff's Back Injury Claim (Docs. #127 & 128) are DENIED.
Source: Leagle
