Case Activity (1469)

1. Notice | Filed: October 14, 2026 | Entered: October 14, 2026 Cyrus v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al

   Civil Rights: Other | New York Eastern

   Notice of Appearance

   NOTICE of Appearance by Brian Eugene Nettle on behalf of Odette K. Oliver Cyrus (aty to be noticed) (Nettle, Brian)

2. Order | Filed: October 07, 2026 | Entered: October 07, 2026 AIG Specialty Insurance Company v. TRC Companies, Inc.

   Contract: Other | California Central

   Summary Judgment In Limine - Exclude Leave Bifurcate Leave to File Document Leave to File Document Under Seal

   ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKTS. 146 , 147] AND PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKTS. 158, 164], THE PARTIES MOTIONS IN LIMINE [DKTS. 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , AND DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL MOTIONS IN LIMINE 188 , MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL 189 , AND APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 UNDER SEAL 191 , 192 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: (SEE DOCUMENT FOR ALL SPECIFIC REASONS AS DISCUSSED HEREIN). The court DENIES Defendant's Motion in its entirety and DENIES Plaintiff's request for partial summary judgment. In addition to the Motion and Plaintiff's request, several procedural and evidentiary motions remain on the court's docket. To facilitate efficient and organized pre-trial proceedings, the parties' Motions in Limine (Dkts. 176 through 180, 182 through 186) are DENIED without prejudice with leave to file amended versions in accordance with the courts pretrial scheduling order and local rules (including good faith meeting and conferring as to each prospective motion). Dkt. 55. Similarly, Defendants related Motion for Leave to file Additional Motions in Limine (Dkt. 188) and Application for Leave to File Opposition to AIGs Motion in Limine No. 2 Under Seal (Dkts. 191, 192) are DENIED as moot. Finally, Defendants pending Motion to Bifurcate Trial (Dkt. 189) is DENIED. The request to bifurcate hinges on the threshold issue of agency. See generally Dkt. 189. Because the court has determined that genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding the existence of an agency relationship between Defendant and Heritage Fields, the evidence required to resolve this issue at trial is inextricably intertwined with the underlying claims. Bifurcation would lead to the duplicative presentation of evidence, including witness testimony, and would not serve the interests of judicial economy under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b). (lc)

3. 1467 additional result(s)