Sharpe v. Global Security International
Plaintiff: Lewis Sharpe
Defendant: Global Security International
Case Number: 2:2009cv00821
Filed: December 21, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama
Office: Selma Office
County: Dallas
Presiding Judge: Sonja F. Bivins
Presiding Judge: William H. Steele
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 rt Job Discrimination/Retaliation
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 2, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 57 ORDER denying 41 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 51 Motion to Strike. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 2/2/2011. (tgw)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sharpe v. Global Security International
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Lewis Sharpe
Represented By: Jon C. Goldfarb
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: Global Security International
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?