GRIMES v. SOUTHEAST RESTAURANTS CORP

Defendant: SOUTHEAST RESTAURANTS CORPORATION
Plaintiff: JESSICA GRIMES
Case Number: 1:2012cv00150
Filed: October 9, 2012
Court: Georgia Middle District Court
Office: Albany Office
County: Sumter
Presiding Judge: W. Louis Sands
Nature of Suit: Labor: Fair Standards
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
August 29, 2013 27 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER finding as moot 18 Motion for Settlement; finding as moot 25 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 26 Amended Motion. It is Ordered that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 8/29/2013. (bcl)

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 Georgia Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: GRIMES v. SOUTHEAST RESTAURANTS CORP
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: SOUTHEAST RESTAURANTS CORPORATION
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: JESSICA GRIMES
Represented By: JOHN W ROPER
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.