Lakeside Roofing Company et al v. Nixon et al
| Lakeside Roofing Company, Daniel T Johnson, Bruce A Lowell, Paul Mumper, Gene Voelker, Jeff Glauber, Robert Frisby and Shay Rooofing, Inc. |
| Jeremiah W Nixon, Chris Koster, Lawrence G Rebman, William F Ringer, Alice A Bartlett, John J Hickey and St. Louis County, Missouri |
| 4:2010cv01761 |
| September 20, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| Adair |
| Constitutionality of State Statutes |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
101
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No.96) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECFNo. 96) is GRANTED to the extent that the Court will order Defendants to pay attorneys fees in the amount of $72,021.20. Plaintiffs motion is DENIED in all other respects. 96 Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 1/7/13. (CLA)
|
|
Filing
95
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees (ECF No. 84) is GRANTED to the extent that the Court will tax costs against Defendants in the amount of $524.84. Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees is DENIED in all other respects. 84 Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 6/7/12. (CLA)
|
|
Filing
89
AMENDED JUDGMENT IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part, and judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiffs as to Plaintiffs Privileges and Immunities Clause and Equal Protection Clause c laims in Count I and Count III of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. Because the Missouri Excessive Unemployment Law (the Law) found at sections 290.550 through 290.580 of the Missouri Revised Statutes violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to theUnited States Constitution, the Court finds and concludes that a permanent injunction should be entered enjoining Defendants and those acting on behal f of any one or more of Defendants from attempting to further enforce the Law.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants and their respective officers, agents andemployees, and each of them, are hereby immediately and permanently enjoined and restrained f rom taking any action or steps in an effort to prevent or bar any construction worker who is a resident of the State of Illinois or a resident of any other restrictive state as identified below from performingany construction-related activities on a public works project in the State of Missouri, as the term public works is defined below, on the basis of the residency of the construction worker. That is, Defendants and their respective officers, agents and employees, shall not utilize a construct ion workers residency in any investigation or proceeding affecting whether that worker may perform construction work on a public works project in Missouri. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants and their respective officers, agents andemployees, and each of them, are hereby immediately and permanently enjoined and restrained from taking any action or steps in an effort to prevent or bar any contractor or subcontractor from working on a public works project in Missouri on the basis that the contr actor or subcontractor employs oneor more construction workers who reside in Illinois or who reside in any other restrictive state. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants and their respective officers, agents and employees, and each of them, are hereb y immediately and permanently enjoined and restrained from taking any action or steps in an effort to commence legal proceedings to seek to enforce a fine or to seek other relief against any person because that person permitted one or more constructi on workers who reside in Illinois or who reside in any other restrictive state to work on a public works project in Missouri.The restrictive states (including United States territories), in addition to the State of Illinois, consist of the following: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, U.S. Virgin Islands, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Pu rsuant toMissouri Revised Statutes section 290.550 and 290.210, a public works is defined as all fixed works constructed for public use or benefit or paid for wholly or in part out of public funds. It also includes any work done directly by any publi c utility company when performed by it pursuant to the order of the public service commission or other public authority whether or not it be done under public supervision or direction or paid for wholly or in part out of public funds when let to contract by said utility. It does not include any work done for or by any drainage or levee district. 87 Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 4/4/12. (CLA)
|
|
Filing
81
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 70 , 72 ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 70) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in accordance with the foregoing. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 72) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in accordance with the foregoing. Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 3/5/12. (CEL)
|
|
Filing
64
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses are GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, in accordance with the foregoing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants first, ninth, and tenth affirmative defenses are STRICKEN. 58 56 Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 6/29/11. (CLA)
|
|
Filing
54
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants William F. Ringer, Alice A. Bartlett, and John J. Hickeys Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 34) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Jeremiah W. Nixons Motion for Judgment on the Pleadin gs (Doc. No. 38) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Jeremiah W. Nixons Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. No. 40) is DENIED as moot. 34 38 40 (See order for details. Defendant Jeremiah W. Nixon terminated.) Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 4/18/2011. (CBL)
|
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 Missouri Eastern 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.
