Sample motion for reconsideration federal court arkansas

The court held that вЂњit is clear that the plaintiffвЂ™s April 8 discovery answers and attached exhibits provided Westinghouse with the information it needed to investigate what equipment it may have supplied to the Navy for use on the vessels on which the decedent worked.вЂќ As such, WestinghouseвЂ™s notice of removal should have been filed after filing of the amended complaint, but no later than thirty days following service of the plaintiffвЂ™s discovery responses in April 2020. WarrenвЂ™s employment records which identified the vessels that Mr. Further, the plaintiffвЂ™s discovery responses asserted exposure to asbestos from вЂњthermal insulation, gaskets, and packing used on the marine equipment he worked on throughout his career, including but not limited to: turbines вЂ¦ which were manufactured by вЂ¦ Westinghouse вЂ¦ and others.вЂќ The plaintiff also provided Mr. Indeed, the amended complaint did not allege that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos at any location other than Navy vessels at the Charleston Naval Shipyard. The court noted that the amended complaint gave Westinghouse notice that the plaintiffвЂ™s claims stemmed from allegations of asbestos exposure from machinery, including turbines, at the Charleston Naval Shipyard. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE 3 2:17-CV-00219-TSZ SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. Ultimately, the court rejected WestinghouseвЂ™s arguments and held that removal was untimely. They further asserted that removal was timely as the plaintiffвЂ™s supplemental discovery responses was вЂњits first clear and unequivocal notice that the plaintiff was, in fact, alleging asbestos exposure from Westinghouse turbines that had been custom-designed, manufactured, and supplied while Westinghouse was acting under the NavyвЂ™s detailed supervision and control.вЂќ Westinghouse opposed the plaintiffвЂ™s motion to remand, asserting that removal was proper since at least one of the plaintiffвЂ™s claims fall within the federal officer removal statute. AP NO.

The plaintiff filed a motion to remand, contending that Westinghouse should have removed the matter after the filing of the complaint (January 2020), or service of the plaintiffвЂ™s discovery responses (April 8, 2020). IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION IN RE: GARY GAINES, and 4:08-bk-13785 VICKI GAINES, Debtors CHAPTER 13 GARY GAINES, and VICKI GAINES PLAINTIFF V. Westinghouse argued that removal was timely as they removed the matter less than thirty days following the plaintiffвЂ™s service of supplemental discovery responses. В§1446(a), Westinghouse filed a Notice of Removal on September 11, 2020. In this asbestos action, plaintiff Cynthia Warren commenced an action alleging that her husband, Bobby Warren, developed mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos from several defendantsвЂ™ products, including Westinghouse. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, September 8, 2021

Sample motion for reconsideration federal court arkansas