Defendant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ("Champagne-Webber's Findings") ¶ 3 Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ("Dustrol's Findings") ¶ 17. ("Champagne-Webber"), entered into a Subcontract with Dustrol relating to milling work Dustrol was to perform for Champage-Webber on a five-mile stretch of Interstate 35W in Tarrant County. On April 28, 1998, the defendant in this action, Champagne-Webber, Inc.
Although Dustrol has not filed a motion to reopen this case, as specifically authorized in the order of November 1, the court will construe these motions as reopening the case and will address the merits of each motion in turn.Īlthough the history of this case, factually and procedurally, is set forth in detail in the October 16 Order, the court will again summarize some of the major events in the course of this dispute. The court administratively closed this case on November 1, 2001. Dustrol's additional request to enjoin the arbitration proceedings pending an appeal of the October 16 Order denied. For the reasons discussed below, Dustrol's motion for certification is denied, and its motion to file a second amended complaint is granted. ("Dustrol") to certify, for an interlocutory appeal, this court's memorandum order, filed Octo("October 16 Order"), compelling arbitration and staying the judicial proceedings in this case and (2) Dustrol's motion to amend its pleadings, by filing a second amended complaint, and to obtain injunctive relief pending an appeal. Before the court are the following motions: (1) the motion of the plaintiff Dustrol, Inc.
0 kommentar(er)
