Bell v. Mine Safety Appliances Company
This text of Bell v. Mine Safety Appliances Company (Bell v. Mine Safety Appliances Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION
VICKIE BELL; PHILLIP B. BELL, JR.; and JONATHAN BELL PLAINTIFFS
v. Case No. 1:13-cv-1075
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES; RUEMELIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; PULMOSAN SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION; CLEMCO INDUSTRIES, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-7 DEFENDANTS
ORDER
In accordance with the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Bell v. Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corporation, 906 F.3d 711 (2018), the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Defendant Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corporation (“Pulmosan”). Accordingly, the Judgment (ECF No. 208) of August 29, 2016, is void and VACATED. Likewise, the order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 206) is hereby VACATED and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 200) is DENIED. Furthermore, the order denying Pulmosan’s Motion to Vacate Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(4) (ECF No. 215) is VACATED and Pulmosan’s Motion to Vacate Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(4) (ECF No. 209) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of November, 2018. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bell v. Mine Safety Appliances Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-mine-safety-appliances-company-arwd-2018.