Obourn v. American Well Corporation
| Noel Obourn |
| American Well Corporation |
| 3:2015cv00048 |
| January 12, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Hartford |
| Janet C. Hall |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
87
RULING granting 63 Motion to Transfer to Another District. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 10/19/2015. (Malone, P.) Modified on 10/19/2015 to reflect this is filed as an oppinion(Malone, P.).
|
|
Filing
85
RULING granting 62 Motion for Reconsideration. Upon reconsideration, the cout grants the part of American Well's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 49 ) that addresses Obourn's breach-of-contract claim for failure to pay her an annual bonus for work performed in 2014. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 10/13/2015. (Lewis, D)
|
|
Filing
58
RULING: For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part American Wells Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 49 ). The court grants American Wells Motion as to the quantum meruit claim and the breach of contract claim for a prorated 2011 annual bonus. The court otherwise denies the Motion. The court TERMINATES American Wells earlier Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 21 , 38 ) as moot.. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 7/10/2015. (Lewis, D)
|
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 Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
