Riewe et al v. FedEx Corporation et al

Filing 192

OPINION AND ORDER: (Alabama 3:06cv428) denying 1155 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Alabama 3:07cv191) Remand of case to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (Arizona 3:07cv2 72) denying 1792 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Arkansas 3:06cv209) denying 1157 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting judgment in favor of FedEx on state law claims only, remand of case to be suggested -joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (California 3:05cv528) denying 1153 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting 1225 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand of case to be suggested -joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (Cal ifornia 3:06cv429) granting 1356 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand of case to be suggested -joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (California 3:08cv52) granting 1658 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand of case to be suggested -joint propo sed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (Florida 3:05cv664) denying 1159 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1235 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Florida 3:09cv356) Remand of case to be suggested -joint proposed pretri al order due 1/3/2011; (Georgia 3:05cv411) denying 1794 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1818 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Indiana 3:05cv390) denying 1611 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1229 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Kentucky 3:05cv599) granting in part 1165 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting in part 1231 Motion for Summary Judgement, remand of case to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial o rder due 1/3/2011; (Louisiana 3:08cv193) denying 1796 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1820 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Maryland 3:06cv485) denying 1167 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1213 M otion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Maryland 3:07cv189) granting 1354 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Minnesota 3:05cv533) denying 1169 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1211 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Nevada 3:07cv120) granting in part 1800 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (Nevada 3:08cv234) Remand to be suggested - joint propo sed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (New Hampshire 3:05cv601) granting in part 1171 Motion for Summary Judgment to Drivers, granting in part to FedEx, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (New Jersey 3:05-cv-595) denyin g 1173 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1227 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (New Jersey 3:05cv535) granting in part 1352 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order d ue 1/10/2011; (New Jersey 3:07cv327) Remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (New Jersey 3:09cv2) Remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (New York 3:05cv538) denying 1175 Motion for Summa ry Judgment and granting 1219 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (New York 3:05cv537) denying 1347 Motion for Partial Summary Judgement as premature, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (North Carolina 3:07cv326) denying 1798 Motion for Summary Judgment (ERISA claim denied without prejudice) and granting judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Ohio 3:08cv336) denying 1802 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting judgment in f avor of FedEx on all state law claims, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (Ohio 3:06cv801) Remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (Oregon 3:05cv596) denying 1177 Motion for Summary J udgment, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (Oregon 3:07cv328) denying 1804 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (Pennsylvania 3:05cv597) denying [1179 ] Motion for Summary Judgment and granting judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Pennsylvania 3:05cv598) Judgment granted in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Pennsylvania 3:09cv3) Remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/201 1; (Rhode Island 3:05cv599) denying 1181 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1233 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (South Carolina 3:05cv668) denying 1183 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting judgment in fav or of FedEx on all claims; (Tennessee 3:05cv600) denying 1185 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1217 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Texas 3:05cv540) denying 1187 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting [12 23] Motion for Summary Judgment, remand to be suggested for federal claims - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/17/2011; (Texas 3:06cv802) Remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/17/2011; (Utah 3:08cv53) denying 1806 Motion fo r Summary Judgment and granting 1822 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Massachusetts 3:07cv325) denying as moot 1870 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/17/2011; (W est Virginia 3:06cv337) denying 1189 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Wisconsin 3:05cv601) denying 1191 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1221 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; denying as moot 1962 and 1987 Motions for trial by jury. Status Report due by 12/27/2010. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/13/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc)

Download PDF

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?