Mcelroy v. Cordish Companies, Inc. et al
| Shelton Mcelroy |
| Cordish Companies, Inc., Louisville Irish, LLC, Entertainment Consulting International, LLC, Cordish Operating Ventures, LLC, Louisville Galleria, LLC, Louisville Jefferson County Metropolitan Government, Christopher M. White, Unknown Louisville Metro Police Officers and Unknown Defendants (John Does) |
| 3:2015cv00390 |
| May 21, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky |
| Louisville Office |
| Jefferson |
| David J. Hale |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
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
21
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: McElroy's motion to remand 15 is DENIED; McElroy shall have an additional twenty-one (21) days from the date of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order within which to respond to the pending motions to dism iss 9 , 13 and 16 . The defendants may file any replies within fourteen (14) days thereafter. In the event McElroy intends to abandon his claims, he shall file a response to that effect. The motions to dismiss of Defendants Cordish Compani es, Inc., et al. 9 ; Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government 13 ; and Louisville Irish, LLC 16 are ADMINISTRATIVELY REMANDED pending completion of the briefing schedule set forth above. Signed by Judge David J. Hale on 3/16/2016. cc: Counsel(JBM)
|
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 Western 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.
