Lard v. Alabama Beverage Control Board et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|September 4, 2012
ORDER that Plaintiff's 31 Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 9/4/2012. (dmn, )
|August 10, 2012
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1. Stan Goolsby having been voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff, Stan Goolsby is DISMISSED without prejudice as a Defendant in this case, and his name shall be removed from the caption. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Stan Goolsby 8 is DENIED as moot. 2. The Partial Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeff Rogers 5 is GRANTED to the extent that any claim in Count II asserted against Rogers is DISMISSED with prejudice as toRogers, and Count IV is dismissed without p rejudice as to Rogers. 3. The Partial Motion to Dismiss filed by the Alabama Beverage Control Board ("ABC Board") 11 is GRANTED as to Count IV, and Count IV is dismissed without prejudice as to the ABC Board. 4. The portion of the Parti al Motion to Dismiss 11 which is directed to the hostile environment claim in Count I is held in abeyance. 5. Lard is given until August 22, 2012 to file an Amended Complaint as further set out. 6. Lard is given until August 22, 2012 to file an a dditional response to the ABC Board's arguments regarding the sufficiency of his hostile environment allegations. The remaining portion of the Partial Motion to Dismiss 11 will be taken under submission at that time. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 8/10/2012. (jg, )
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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?