Looney v. Purely, Inc. et al
| Kathy J. Looney |
| Purely, Inc., Andrew Khong, Kelly Love and Thai LNU |
| 1:2017cv00294 |
| June 27, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama |
| Mobile Office |
| Mobile |
| Katherine P. Nelson |
| Other Personal Injury |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| None |
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
33
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that defendants' motion to dismiss 9 is GRANTED under Rule 12(b)(6) and is therefore DENIED as moot to the extent the Court has partially treated the motion as one for summary judgement under Rule 56. Plaintiff� 39;s 1983 claims against all defendants and her Title VII claim against the individual defendants in their individual capacities are DISMISSED with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) without leave to amend as to those claims. The Title VII sexual harassme nt claims against Purely and the individual defendants in their "official capacities"are DISMISSED without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint by 3/7/18 that plausibly alleges Title VII sex ual harassment claims against Purely and/or the Individual Defendants. If no amended complaint filed, the dismissal of the sexual harassment claims shall be converted to a DISMISSAL with prejudice without further order of court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 2/21/18. (srr)
|
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 Southern 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.
