Houston v. PepsiCo, Inc.

Houston v. PepsiCo, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Gregory L. Houston
Defendant:	PepsiCo, Inc.
Case Number:	3:2014cv02050
Filed:	October 31, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Office:	Nashville Office
County:	Davidson
Presiding Judge:	John S. Bryant
Presiding Judge:	William J. Haynes
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1441
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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
May 24, 2016	Filing 60 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 59), to which no Objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file. T he Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 26 ) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED. Any other pending Motions are denied as moot, and the Clerk is directed to close the file. The pretrial conference set for April 3, 2017, and the jury trail set for April 11, 2016, are canceled. This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 5/24/2016. (eh)
May 6, 2016	Filing 59 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED as to all claims. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 5/6/2016. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 24, 2016

Filing 60 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 59), to which no Objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file. T he Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 26 ) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED. Any other pending Motions are denied as moot, and the Clerk is directed to close the file. The pretrial conference set for April 3, 2017, and the jury trail set for April 11, 2016, are canceled. This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 5/24/2016. (eh)

May 6, 2016

Filing 59 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED as to all claims. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 5/6/2016. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

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 Tennessee Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Houston v. PepsiCo, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Gregory L. Houston
Represented By:	Andy L. Allman
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 ]
Defendant: PepsiCo, Inc.
Represented By:	Emily Collins Fess
Represented By:	Andrew S. Naylor
Represented By:	Thomas M. Wilde
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?