HAYWOOD v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
MICHAEL A. HAYWOOD |
THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH |
MICHAEL A. HAYWOOD |
THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH |
2:2011cv01200 |
September 19, 2011 |
US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
Pittsburgh Office |
XX US, Outside State |
Joy Flowers Conti |
Other Contract |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 77 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH and 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by MICHAEL A. HAYWOOD. Signed by Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 9/30/13. (kjm) |
Filing 55 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 40 Motion to Revoke Pro Hac Vice Admission. The issue with respect to whether Attorney Buzbees pro hac vice admission should be revoked by reason of his failure to report the revocation of his pro hac vice admission in state court in Iowa is hereby referred to Chief Judge Lancaster pursuant to Local Rule of Court 83.3.B.1. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 12/18/12. (kjm) |
Filing 37 ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 31 Motion to Compel. Defendant may contact the court for clarification of the redaction instructions contained in the court's order. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 8/28/12. (kjm) |
Filing 24 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 8 Defendant's partial Motion to Dismiss as set forth more fully within. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 2/22/2012. (cal ) |
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
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.