Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mullen v. Heinkel Filtering Sys., Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

October 22, 2014

Bill Mullen, Michelle Mullen, Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
Heinkel Filtering Systems, Inc., Defendant Pepperl & Fuchs, Inc. Defendant - Appellant Bill Mullen, Michelle Mullen, Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
Heinkel Filtering Systems, Inc., Defendant - Appellant Pepperl & Fuchs, Inc., Defendant

Submitted September 8, 2014

Page 725

Appeals from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo.

For Bill Mullen, Michelle Mullen, Plaintiffs - Appellees (13-3512): Steven J. Crowley, Crowley & Bunger, Burlington, IA; Keith James Larson, Patrick M. Roby, Elderkin & Pirnie, Cedar Rapids, IA.

For Pepperl & Fuchs, Inc., Defendant - Appellant (13-3512): Jay Campbell Helton, Whitfield & Eddy, Des Moines, IA.

For Bill Mullen, Michelle Mullen, Plaintiff - Appellee (13-3513): Steven J. Crowley, Crowley & Bunger, Burlington, IA; Keith James Larson, Patrick M. Roby, Elderkin & Pirnie, Cedar Rapids, IA.

For Heinkel Filtering Systems, Inc., Defendant - Appellant (13-3513): Stephen G. Olson II, Engles & Ketcham, Omaha, NE.

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Page 726

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Heinkel Filtering Systems, Inc. (Heinkel), and Pepperl & Fuchs, Inc. (Pepperl), appeal from an order of the district court[1] granting Bill and Michelle Mullen's motion to dismiss without prejudice. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

I.

In December 2011, Bill Mullen sustained injuries on the job from a centrifuge manufactured by Heinkel and containing a component part sold and distributed by Pepperl. Mullen and his wife, Michelle, brought suit against Heinkel and Pepperl in Iowa state court, seeking damages based on a products-liability theory. In December 2012, Heinkel removed the case to federal district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction: the Mullens are Iowa residents, Heinkel is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio, and Pepperl is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey.

In February 2013, the magistrate judge[2] set the scheduling order. The Mullens' deadline for disclosing expert witnesses was May 1, 2013. The deadline was later extended to July 1, 2013. The Mullens failed to name an expert by that date, and they did not file a motion to extend the expert deadline until August 9, 2013. Following an August 28, 2013, hearing on the motion, the magistrate judge entered an order on September 4, 2013, refusing to extend the expert disclosure deadline, finding that the Mullens' attorney " simply forgot ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.