Legal Opinion

Markhorst v. Ridgid, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 30, 2007No. Civil Action 06-2345PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint (doc. no.’s 13, 14). A decision on this motion turns on whether One World Technologies, Inc., who Plaintiff seeks to add as a defendant, received timely notice of this action. Because the Court finds that One World did not receive timely notice, Plaintiffs motion will be denied.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff James Markhorst (“Mark-horst”) originally brought this products liability action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, on the eve of the relevant statute of limitations, against…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Tysheia Garvin v. City of Philadelphia Police Officer John DoeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2003
  2. Francisco Hernandez Jimenez v. Astol Calero ToledoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1979
  3. Payton v. Pennsylvania Sling Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Richardson v. John F. Kennedy Memorial HospitalDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
  5. Wine v. Emsa Ltd. PartnershipDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. DEARDORFF v. CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2022
  2. METRO CONTAINER GROUP v. AC&T CO., INC.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2020
  3. WAZEE STREET OPPORTUNITIES FUND IV LP v. THE FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCYDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API