Roberts v. Eastern Oklahoma Medical Center, Inc.

Plaintiff: Mary C. Roberts
Defendant: Eastern Oklahoma Medical Center, Inc.
Case Number: 6:2013cv00189
Filed: April 26, 2013
Court: Oklahoma Eastern District Court
Office: Muskogee Office
County: Le Flore
Presiding Judge: Kimberly E. West
Nature of Suit: Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action: 29:2601 Family & Medical Leave Act
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
March 26, 2014 40 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West : DENYING 31 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint no later than 4/2/14. (neh, Deputy Clerk)

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

Search for this case: Roberts v. Eastern Oklahoma Medical Center, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mary C. Roberts
Represented By: Charles C. Vaught
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: Eastern Oklahoma Medical Center, Inc.
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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.