Rayco Manufacturing, Inc. v. Deutz Corporation et al, No. 5:2008cv00074 - Document 192 (N.D. Ohio 2010)
Court Description: Judgment Entry that for the reasons contained in the memorandum opinions and orders 191 filed contemporaneously with this entry, the Deutz defendants' motions for summary judgment against plaintiff Rayco Manufacturing, Inc. (ECF [138 ]) and intervening plaintiff Fecon, Inc. (ECF 142 ) are granted in part and denied in part; and for the reasons stated in the Court's memorandum opinions and orders (See ECF 180 and 185 ), defendants' motions for summary judgment aga inst Rayco and Fecon are Denied in part with respect to the engines which were the subject of the deposition testimony of Aaron Wade Taylor, Thomas Cole, John Orban, and John Dukes, and with respect to the engines described in the declarations of Ch ris Howard and Bill Gourley; and for the reasons stated in the Court's memorandum opinion and order contemporaneously filed with this judgment entry, defendants' motions for summary judgment against Rayco and Fecon are Granted in part wit h respect to all engines which are the subject of this lawsuit, except those engines for which the Court denied in part defendants' motions for summary judgment, as described supra. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. on 11/3/2010. (M,De)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rayco Manufacturing, Inc. v. Deutz Corporation et al Doc. 192 DOWD, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Rayco Manufacturing, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Deutz Corporation, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:08 CV 74 JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons contained in the memorandum opinions and orders previously and contemporaneously filed herewith, the Deutz defendants’ motions for summary judgment against plaintiff Rayco Manufacturing, Inc. (ECF 138) and intervening plaintiff Fecon, Inc. (ECF 142) are granted in part and denied in part. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the for the reasons stated in the Court’s memorandum opinions and orders previously filed (See ECF 180 and 185), defendants’ motions for summary judgment against Rayco and Fecon are DENIED IN PART with respect to the engines which were the subject of the deposition testimony of Aaron Wade Taylor, Thomas Cole, John Orban, and John Dukes, and with respect to the engines described in the declarations of Chris Howard and Bill Gourley. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that for the reasons stated in the Court’s memorandum opinion and order contemporaneously filed with this judgment entry, defendants’ motions for summary judgment against Rayco and Fecon are Dockets.Justia.com (5:08 CV 74) GRANTED IN PART with respect to all engines which are the subject of this lawsuit, except those engines for which the Court denied in part defendants’ motions for summary judgment, as described supra. IT IS SO ORDERED. November 3, 2010 Date s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
