Sanchez v. Apostolou et al
| Juana Sanchez |
| VPC Pizza Operating Corp., VPC Prudential Pizza, LLC and Basil Apostolou |
| 1:2012cv04860 |
| June 19, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| Matthew F. Kennelly |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 |
| 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
52
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 1/30/2013:Mailed notice(lp, )
|
|
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 10/31/2012: For the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court grants both defendants' motions to dismiss. The dismissal as to Basil Apostolou is wi th prejudice due to the application of the doctrine of claim preclusion. The dismissal as to the VPC entities is not with prejudice at this point. If Sanchez believes that she can file a viable amended complaint against them consistent with her oblig ations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, she may file a motion for leave to amend, attaching her proposed amended complaint, by no later than November 14, 2012. The case is set for a status hearing on November 19, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. The Court takes Basil Apostolou's motion for sanctions under advisement. The status and ruling dates set for today are vacated. (mk)
|
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 Illinois Northern 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.
