Lakeside Roofing Company et al v. Nixon et al

Plaintiff: Lakeside Roofing Company, Daniel T Johnson, Bruce A Lowell, Paul Mumper, Gene Voelker, Jeff Glauber, Robert Frisby and Shay Rooofing, Inc.
Defendant: Jeremiah W Nixon, Chris Koster, Lawrence G Rebman, William F Ringer, Alice A Bartlett, John J Hickey and St. Louis County, Missouri
 
Case Number: 4:2010cv01761
Filed: September 20, 2010
 
Court: Missouri Eastern District Court
Office: St. Louis Office
County: Adair
 
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1983
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
January 7, 2013 101 Featured Case 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)
April 18, 2011 54 Featured Case 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)
June 29, 2011 64 Featured Case 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)
March 5, 2012 81 Featured Case 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)
April 4, 2012 89 Featured Case 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)
June 7, 2012 95 Featured Case 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)

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.
Search for this case: Lakeside Roofing Company et al v. Nixon et al
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Lakeside Roofing Company
Represented By: Michael E. Wilson
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
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: Daniel T Johnson
Represented By: Michael E. Wilson
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
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: Bruce A Lowell
Represented By: Michael E. Wilson
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
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: Paul Mumper
Represented By: Michael E. Wilson
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
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: Gene Voelker
Represented By: Michael E. Wilson
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
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: Jeff Glauber
Represented By: Michael E. Wilson
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
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: Robert Frisby
Represented By: Michael E. Wilson
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
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: Shay Rooofing, Inc.
Represented By: Michael E. Wilson
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
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: Jeremiah W Nixon
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
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: Chris Koster
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
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: Lawrence G Rebman
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
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: William F Ringer
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
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: Alice A Bartlett
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
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: John J Hickey
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
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: St. Louis County, Missouri
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
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 ]