PRISE et al v. ALDERWOODS GROUP, INC. et al
| 2:2006cv01470 |
| November 6, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Joy Flowers Conti |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| Plaintiff |
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
291
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 276 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any attorneys' fees and expenses because she is not a prevailing party, for the reasons set forth more fully within. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 09/26/11. (fgm)
|
|
Filing
290
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 278 Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law as set forth more fully within. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 7/25/2011. (cal )
|
|
Filing
289
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 279 Motion for Reconsideration. As set forth in the Memorandum Opinion and Order herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that re 279 , the motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiff Deborah Prise is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 6/24/2011. (lbk)
|
|
Filing
273
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER DENYING 266 MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF filed by DEBORAH PRISE as set forth more fully within. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 8/31/2010. (cal )
|
|
Filing
169
MEMORANDUM OPINION granting in part and denying in part 107 Alderwoods' Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Plaintiff Deborah Prise; granting 111 Alderwoods' Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Plaintiff Heather Rady; an d denying 116 Plaintiff Deborah Prise's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. As set forth more fully within, because plaintiffs did not object to the dismissal of all claims against Hirsch Funeral Home, Samson Funeral Home and Brandt Funeral Home, those claims will be dismissed. Alderwoods' motion for summary judgment with respect to Rady's claims (Document No. 111 ) will be granted in its entirety. Alderwoods' motion for summary judgment with respect to Prise's cla ims (Document No. 107 ) will be denied with respect to the retaliation claims under Title VII and the PHRA and granted with respect to all other claims. Prise's motion for partial summary judgment (Document No. 116 ) will be denied. As there is a genuine issue of material fact about whether Alderwoods retaliated against Prise for filing charges of discrimination with the EEOC and the PHRC, Prise may proceed to trial on her retaliation claims under Title VII and the PHRA. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 9/21/09. (cal ) Modified on 9/21/2009 to correct typographical error. (cal ) Modified on 9/22/2009. (jsp)
|
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 Pennsylvania Western 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: PRISE et al v. ALDERWOODS GROUP, INC. et al | |
|---|---|
| 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.
