Legal Opinion

Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC

District Court, S.D. Alabama

Decided February 17, 2022No. 1:18-cv-00317Unknown

1Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION WILLIAM HEATH HORNADY, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-00317-JB-N OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On November 18, 2021, the Court entered an Order issuing a default against Defendant Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC (“Defendant”) as a sanction for Defendant’s bad faith misconduct throughout the discovery process and misrepresentations to the Court. (Doc. 344). In its Order, the Court found Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) (Doc. 223) states…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Nishimatsu Construction Co., Ltd. v. Houston National Bank, Defendant-Third Party v. Jack D. Baize, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
  3. Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. MisselSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  4. Lundy v. Catholic Health System of Long Island Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
  5. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1997

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API