Schmidt v. Navistar, Inc.

D. New Mexico

Schmidt v. Navistar, Inc.

DecidedMarch 25, 2021

Docket1:18-cv-00321

StatusUnknown

This text of Schmidt v. Navistar, Inc. (Schmidt v. Navistar, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Mexico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schmidt v. Navistar, Inc., (D.N.M. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO D. MARIA SCHMIDT, as the Personal Representative of the Wrongful Death Estate of RUBEN GUERRA QUINONES, Deceased, Plaintiff, Vs. CIV 18-0321 KG/JFR NAVISTAR, INC., Defendant. ORDER OF REFERENCE In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B), (b)(3), and Va. Beach Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Wood, 901 F.2d 849 (10 Cir. 1990), this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge John F. Robbenhaar to conduct hearings, if warranted, including evidentiary hearings, and to perform any legal analysis required to recommend to the Court an ultimate disposition of the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement on Behalf of The Minor Plaintiff Beneficiary of The Estate (Doc. 134). The Magistrate Judge will submit an analysis, including findings of fact, if necessary, and recommended disposition, to the District Judge assigned to the case, with copies provided to the parties. The parties will be given the opportunity to object to the proposed findings, analysis, and disposition as described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the proposed disposition. aielo—g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO D. MARIA SCHMIDT, as the Personal Representative of the Wrongful Death Estate of RUBEN GUERRA QUINONES, Deceased, Plaintiff, Vs. CIV 18-0321 KG/JFR NAVISTAR, INC., Defendant. ORDER OF REFERENCE In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B), (b)(3), and Va. Beach Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Wood, 901 F.2d 849 (10 Cir. 1990), this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge John F. Robbenhaar to conduct hearings, if warranted, including evidentiary hearings, and to perform any legal analysis required to recommend to the Court an ultimate disposition of the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement on Behalf of The Minor Plaintiff Beneficiary of The Estate (Doc. 134). The Magistrate Judge will submit an analysis, including findings of fact, if necessary, and recommended disposition, to the District Judge assigned to the case, with copies provided to the parties. The parties will be given the opportunity to object to the proposed findings, analysis, and disposition as described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the proposed disposition. aielo—g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Schmidt v. Navistar, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-navistar-inc-nmd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack