Fortson v. Quality Restaurant Concepts (MAG+)

Justia Dockets & Filings Eleventh Circuit Alabama Middle District Fortson v. Quality Restaurant Concepts (MAG+)

Fortson v. Quality Restaurant Concepts (MAG+)

Plaintiff:	Lorraine Fortson
Defendant:	Quality Restaurant Concepts
Case Number:	2:2013cv00426
Filed:	June 18, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Office:	Montgomery Office
County:	Montgomery
Presiding Judge:	Susan Russ Walker
Presiding Judge:	William Keith Watkins
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	29 U.S.C. § 621 Job Discrimination (Age)
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
July 17, 2015	Filing 42 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that Defendant's 31 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is DENIED as further set out in the order. The parties are DIRECTED to proceed to arbitration as previously ordered. It is further ORDERED that the 13 Motion to Lift Stay is DENIED as further set out in the order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 7/17/2015. (dmn, )
May 12, 2015	Filing 38 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 25 Order, 31 Motion to Lift the Stay and to Enforce the Settlement, 33 Response, and 34 Reply. After careful consideration of the parties arguments, the court finds that the court, not the arbitrator, must dec ide whether the parties reached a valid settlement agreement. It is for this court to decide whether the parties reached a valid settlement agreement. An order setting this case for a hearing on Defendant's motion to enforce the settlement agreement will be entered separately. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 5/12/2015. (dmn, )

Date Filed

Document Text

July 17, 2015

Filing 42 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that Defendant's 31 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is DENIED as further set out in the order. The parties are DIRECTED to proceed to arbitration as previously ordered. It is further ORDERED that the 13 Motion to Lift Stay is DENIED as further set out in the order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 7/17/2015. (dmn, )

May 12, 2015

Filing 38 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 25 Order, 31 Motion to Lift the Stay and to Enforce the Settlement, 33 Response, and 34 Reply. After careful consideration of the parties arguments, the court finds that the court, not the arbitrator, must dec ide whether the parties reached a valid settlement agreement. It is for this court to decide whether the parties reached a valid settlement agreement. An order setting this case for a hearing on Defendant's motion to enforce the settlement agreement will be entered separately. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 5/12/2015. (dmn, )

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

Search for this case: Fortson v. Quality Restaurant Concepts (MAG+)
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Lorraine Fortson
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: Quality Restaurant Concepts
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?