Stewart v. Rock Tenn

Stewart v. Rock Tenn

Plaintiff:	Travis Pierre Stewart
Defendant:	Rock Tenn
Case Number:	3:2013cv02147
Filed:	December 6, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office:	Portland (3) Office
Presiding Judge:	John V. Acosta
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 12111 Americans With Disabilities Act
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
June 29, 2016	Filing 95 OPINION and ORDER - After careful consideration of the briefs and the entire record, the court GRANTS IN PART defendants motions to dismiss 76 , and dismisses plaintiffs Title VII and ADA claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.DATED this 29th day of June, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
April 24, 2015	Filing 55 OPINION and ORDER - For the reasons stated, Rock Tenn's Motion to Dismiss 39 is GRANTED. Stewart's first, second, third, and eighth claims for relief are dismissed without prejudice; his fifth and ninth claims for relief are dismissed wi th prejudice; and his fourth, sixth, and seventh claims for relief remain live claims, as Defendants did not move to dismiss them. Moreover, Stewart's Motion for Leave to Amend 43 is denied, as the PAC fails to cure the deficiencies contained in Stewart's Second Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 24th day of April, 2015, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (see attached document - 22 pages) (peg)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 29, 2016

Filing 95 OPINION and ORDER - After careful consideration of the briefs and the entire record, the court GRANTS IN PART defendants motions to dismiss 76 , and dismisses plaintiffs Title VII and ADA claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.DATED this 29th day of June, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)

April 24, 2015

Filing 55 OPINION and ORDER - For the reasons stated, Rock Tenn's Motion to Dismiss 39 is GRANTED. Stewart's first, second, third, and eighth claims for relief are dismissed without prejudice; his fifth and ninth claims for relief are dismissed wi th prejudice; and his fourth, sixth, and seventh claims for relief remain live claims, as Defendants did not move to dismiss them. Moreover, Stewart's Motion for Leave to Amend 43 is denied, as the PAC fails to cure the deficiencies contained in Stewart's Second Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 24th day of April, 2015, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (see attached document - 22 pages) (peg)

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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Stewart v. Rock Tenn
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Rock Tenn
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Travis Pierre Stewart
Represented By:	Jeffrey S. Dickey
Represented By:	Erin M. Pettigrew
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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.

Why Is My Information Online?