Paul et al v. Asbury Automotive Group, LLC
3:2006cv01603 |
November 8, 2006 |
US District Court for the District of Oregon |
Civil Rights: Jobs Office |
Garr M. King |
Both |
Federal Question |
42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race) |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 111 Opinion and Order - Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Plaintiffs' Hostile Work Environment 93 and Defendant's Alternative Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Plaintiffs' Claims for Punitive Damages 94 are DENIED. Defendant's Motion for New Trial or Remittitur 95 is DENIED, conditioned on plaintiffs' acceptance of the remitted damages awards. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of compensatory damages in the amount of $150,000 eac h. Plaintiffs are entitled to a punitive damages award of $150,000 each. Plaintiffs are directed to individually evaluate whether they accept the remitted compensatory and punitive damages awards or whether they wish to proceed to trial on defendants liability for punitive damages and their emotional distress damages. The Court will schedule a telephone conference in the near future. Signed on 1/23/2009 by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) |
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 Oregon 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
Search for this case: Paul et al v. Asbury Automotive Group, LLC | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.