United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
January 17, 2012.
January 17, 2012.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
John A. McNally, III, John A. McNally, III, LPA, Youngstown, PA, Willard Proctor, Jr., Willard Proctor, Jr., PA, Little Rock, AR, Gary Lee Chambers, Chambers Noronha and Kubota, Santa Ana, CA, Craig Daniel Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum, P.C., New York, NY, Joseph G. Abromovitz, Law Office Of Joseph G. Abromovitz, PC, Dedham, MA, James A. Moss, Fidelity National Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, James F. Brook, John Nicholas Vingelli, James F. Brook & Associates, Scottsdale, AZ, Michael Cunningham, Michelle Brazdil Baker, BR Law Group LLP, Oleg Cross, Cross Law Group, San Diego, CA, Christy J. Jepson, Paul Henry Strecker, Strecker, Jepson & Associates, Lake Zurich, IL, Chris Linn Knight, Chris Knight PC, Tulsa, OK, Erin Elizabeth Hanson, Mirch Law Firm, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Colleen M. Hennessey, Peabody & Arnold, Boston, MA, Darolyn Y. Hamada, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Irvine, CA, Joseph Michael Russell, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Chicago, IL, Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Mitchell Williams Selig Gates & Woodyard, Little Rock, AR, Matthew J. Griffin, Peabody & Arnold, LLP, Boston, MA, Michael X. Imbroscio, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, Natalie Helene Mantell, Gibbons, PC, Sheila Raferty Wiggins, Duane Morris, LLP, Newark, NJ, Natasha L. Mosley, Irvine, CA, Paul E. Asfendis, Gibbons, PC, New York, NY, Susan E. Burnett, Bowman & Brooke, LLP, Austin, TX, Stephen M. Bressler, Lewis & Roca LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Emily J. Hicks, Pietragallo, Gordon, Alfano, Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, Jeffrey Schaefer, Jennifer S. Heis, Kimberly L. Beck, Michael J. Suffern, Thomas G. McIntosh, Ulmer & Berne, LLP, Cincinatti, OH, Alan Klein, Duane Morris, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.
ORDER
JAMES S. MOODY, JR., District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Julie D. Allison's Motion to Remand (Dkt. 945) and Defendants' Response in opposition (Dkt. 948). The Court, having considered the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that the motion to remand should be granted.
BACKGROUND
This is an action for product liability and medical malpractice. Plaintiff...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
