Fernandez v. Executive Management Services, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Arizona District Court Fernandez v. Executive Management Services, Inc.

Fernandez v. Executive Management Services, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Carmen Fernandez
Defendant:	Executive Management Services, Inc.
Case Number:	2:2007cv02064
Filed:	October 23, 2007
Court:	US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office:	Phoenix Division Office
County:	Maricopa
Presiding Judge:	Lawrence O Anderson
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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
September 2, 2009	Filing 59 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED Granting the 50 Motion to Strike the Declarations of Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Banuelos Attached in Support of Dft's 49 Reply Memorandum in Support of its 41 Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons set out in this Order from the Reply. The Clerk shall strike the exhibits to the 49 Reply. FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Dft's 41 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 9/1/09. (SAT)
October 25, 2007	Filing 4 ORDER and Notice of Assignment; that Plaintiff shall file by November 23, 2007 her written election to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United States district judge. Plaintiff to serve dft with the consent form with her complaint and that dft consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a district judge within 20 days of Defendants formal appearance herein.. Signed by Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 10/25/07. (DMT, )

Date Filed

Document Text

September 2, 2009

Filing 59 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED Granting the 50 Motion to Strike the Declarations of Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Banuelos Attached in Support of Dft's 49 Reply Memorandum in Support of its 41 Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons set out in this Order from the Reply. The Clerk shall strike the exhibits to the 49 Reply. FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Dft's 41 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 9/1/09. (SAT)

October 25, 2007

Filing 4 ORDER and Notice of Assignment; that Plaintiff shall file by November 23, 2007 her written election to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United States district judge. Plaintiff to serve dft with the consent form with her complaint and that dft consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a district judge within 20 days of Defendants formal appearance herein.. Signed by Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 10/25/07. (DMT, )

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 Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Fernandez v. Executive Management Services, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Executive Management Services, Inc.
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 ]
Plaintiff: Carmen Fernandez
Represented By:	Stephen G Montoya
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?