Farrar et al. v. Mobil Oil Corporation
Mobil appealed from the Court's adverse ruling regarding its breach of the 1984 Settlement Agreement.
On March 15, 2012, the Court entered an Order granting plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on their claim that Mobil breached the 1984 Settlement Agreement.
The Court entered a Case Management Order which establishes certain timetables for pretrial matters, and sets a trial date on October 29, 2012.
Plaintiffs' submitted this Memorandum in support of their motion for an order determining that the prior rulings of Hon. Tom R. Smith on August 18, 2009, and affirmed by the Kansas Court of Appeals, constitute the law of the case.
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order determining that the prior rulings made by Hon. Tom R. Smith on August 18, 2009, and affirmed by the Kansas Court of Appeals, constitute the law of the case.
The court granted Mobil 90 days to conduct discovery and respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiffs filed a reply to the argument contained in Mobil's Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Authority regarding Mobil's motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Mobil filed this response to Plaintiffs' further legal authority submitted to the Court.
Plaintiffs submitted further legal authority regarding Mobil's motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Mobil filed this reply regarding its motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiffs asked the Court to deny Mobil's motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Mobil filed this motion asking the Court to grant an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for SummaryJudgment on Their Claim for Breach of the 1984 Settlement Agreement.
Plaintiffs submitted this Memorandum in support of their summary judgment motion against Mobil, on their claim that Mobil breached the 1984 Settlement Agreement.
Plaintiff Class Counsel requested that the Court enter an order of summary judgment in their favor on their claim that Mobil breached the 1984 Settlement Agreement previously entered into by the parties.
In January 2011, Mobil provided to Plaintiff Class Counsel a list of additional members of the Plaintiff Class. In this Second Supplemental Order, the Court set the date on which notices were to be mailed to those additional Class Members.
This is the official Notice of a class action that was sent to the members of the Plaintiff Class.
Plaintiff's requested this Supplemental Order from the Court in order to update the notices that are to be mailed to members of the Plaintiff Class and published.
On November 5, 2010, the Kansas Supreme Court denied Mobil’s Petition for Review. The lawsuit is now back in district court for further proceedings.
Order denying Petition for Review (PDF)
Mobil's response to Appellees' Motion regarding continuing effect of stay order.
Appellees’ Motion For An Order Confirming Stay Is No Longer In Effect Or, In The Alternative, For An Order Vacating The Stay
