Al Acii v. AutoZone, Inc. et al
||AutoZone West, Inc., AutoZone, Inc., The AutoZone, Does and AutoZone
||March 1, 2011
||California Central District Court
||John A Kronstadt
||Andrew J. Wistrich
|Nature of Suit:
||Civil Rights: Jobs
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|March 7, 2013
JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Pursuant to the Special Verdict, judgment is hereby entered against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants on the merits of those claims -- the First Cause of Action for Discrimination on the Basis o f Age in Violation of Fair Employment & Housing Act and the Second Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination/Retaliatory Discharge of Employment in Violation of Public Policy -- that were presented at the trial in this action. The claims that were not submitted to the jury were: the Third Cause of Action for Discrimination on the Basis of Race in Violation of Fair Employment & Housing Act, which was dismissed voluntarily, and with prejudice, by Plaintiff prior to the completion of the trial; and the Fourth Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, which was dismissed after the Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. Dkt. 129. Plaintiff shall recover nothing in the action. Defendants may recover costs in the amount of $__________. This amount shall be determined upon the filing of the appropriate application pursuant to the applicable procedures (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ir)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.