Laubis v. Witt et al

Plaintiff: Erik Laubis
Defendant: Kathy H. Witt
Case Number: 5:2013cv00164
Filed: June 4, 2013
Court: Kentucky Eastern District Court
Office: Lexington Office
County: Fayette
Presiding Judge: Karen K. Caldwell
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
March 20, 2014 9 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Witt's 4 MOTION for More Definite Statement DENIED AS MOOT; (2) Witt's 6 MOTION to Dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED; (3) Witt's alternative MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 3/20/2014.(STC)cc: COR

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 Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Laubis v. Witt et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Erik Laubis
Represented By: Christopher M. Clendenen
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 ]
Defendant: Kathy H. Witt
Represented By: Daniel Luke Morgan
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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.