1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. PEREZ v. BRUISTER
 

PEREZ v. BRUISTER

Civil Action Nos. 3:13cv1001-DPJ-FKB, 3:13cv1081-DPJ-FKB

THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. HERBERT C. BRUISTER, et al., Defendants, JOEL D. RADER and VINCENT SEALY, Plaintiffs, v. HERBERT C. BRUISTER, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division.

July 25, 2014.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Joel Rader, Plaintiff, represented by Louis H. Watson, Jr., WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC.

Thomas E. Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Dane L. Steffenson, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, Gary D. Greenwald, KELLER ROHRBACK, PLC, Louis H. Watson, Jr., WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC, Angela Faye Donaldson, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, Anna O. Crowell, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Plan Benefits Security Division, Leslie C. Perlman, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Solicitor, Michael Schloss, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Plan Benefits Security Divisio, Peter B. Dolan, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Solicitor, PBSD, Stephen Silverman, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Solicitor & Thomas Tso, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Plan Benefits Security Division.

Joel D. Rader, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Charles P. Yezbak, III, YEZBAK LAW OFFICES, Gary A. Gotto, KELLER ROHRBACK, PLC, Gary D. Greenwald, KELLER ROHRBACK, PLC, Louis H. Watson, Jr., WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC, Michael D. Woerner, KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP & Robert Nicholas Norris, WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC.

Vincent Sealy, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Charles P. Yezbak, III, YEZBAK LAW OFFICES, Gary A. Gotto, KELLER ROHRBACK, PLC, Gary D. Greenwald, KELLER ROHRBACK, PLC, Louis H. Watson, Jr., WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC, Michael D. Woerner, KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP & Robert Nicholas Norris, WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC.

Herbert Bruister, Defendant, represented by Cecil Maison Heidelberg, HEIDELBERG HARMON, PLLC, David R. Johanson, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Douglas A. Rubel, JACKSON LEWIS, PC & Jason M. Stein, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP.

Amy Smith, Defendant, represented by Cecil Maison Heidelberg, HEIDELBERG HARMON, PLLC, David R. Johanson, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP & Douglas A. Rubel, JACKSON LEWIS, PC.

Jonda Henry, Defendant, represented by Cecil Maison Heidelberg, HEIDELBERG HARMON, PLLC, David R. Johanson, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP & Douglas A. Rubel, JACKSON LEWIS, PC.

J. Michael Bruce, Defendant, represented by Cecil Maison Heidelberg, HEIDELBERG HARMON, PLLC, David R. Johanson, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP & Douglas A. Rubel, JACKSON LEWIS, PC.

Bruister & Associates Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Defendant, represented by Cecil Maison Heidelberg, HEIDELBERG HARMON, PLLC, David R. Johanson, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP & Douglas A. Rubel, JACKSON LEWIS, PC.

Bruister & Associates Employee Stock Ownership Trust, Defendant, represented by Cecil Maison Heidelberg, HEIDELBERG HARMON, PLLC, David R. Johanson, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP & Douglas A. Rubel, JACKSON LEWIS, PC.

Bruister & Associates Eligible Individual Account Plan, Defendant, represented by Cecil Maison Heidelberg, HEIDELBERG HARMON, PLLC, David R. Johanson, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP & Douglas A. Rubel, JACKSON LEWIS, PC.

Southeastern Ventures, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cecil Maison Heidelberg, HEIDELBERG HARMON, PLLC, David R. Johanson, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP & Douglas A. Rubel, JACKSON LEWIS, PC.

Herbert C. Bruister, Consol Defendant, represented by Cecil Maison Heidelberg, HEIDELBERG HARMON, PLLC, Christopher James Rillo, SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, David R. Johanson, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP & Douglas A. Rubel, JACKSON LEWIS, PC.

Amy O. Smith, Consol Defendant, represented by Cecil Maison Heidelberg, HEIDELBERG HARMON, PLLC.

Bruister Family LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by Cecil Maison Heidelberg, HEIDELBERG HARMON, PLLC, David R. Johanson, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP & Douglas A. Rubel, JACKSON LEWIS, PC.

ORDER

DANIEL P. JORDAN, III, District Judge.

These consolidated cases are before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to exclude the testimony of Robert J. Gross and James Mandel [573]. At the June 20, 2014 pretrial conference in these cases, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a reply in support of the motion and permitted Defendants to file a brief surreply. Having considered all the briefing on the matters, the Court concludes that the motion should...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases