Richards v. Holsum Bakery, Inc., et al

Plaintiff: Warren N Richards, IV
Defendant: Flowers Foods, Inc. and Holsum Bakery, Inc.
Case Number: 2:2009cv00418
Filed: March 2, 2009
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Labor: E.R.I.S.A. Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: Mary H Murguia
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
February 23, 2011 87 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 75 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court and denying 82 Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside 49 Court Order. ThepParties shall file a joint-status report with the Court no later than ten days after the date of this Orde r. The Clerk is directed to reassign this case. This matter has been reassigned by random lot to Judge David G. Campbell. All future pleadings in this matter should now list the following complete case number: CV 09-418 PHX-DGC. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 2/22/10.(LSP)
June 29, 2010 76 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting Defendants' 50 Motion for Attorney Fees in the amount of $13,000.00. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 06/25/10.(ESL)
June 10, 2010 74 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 66 Motion to Remand to State Court with leave to re-file within 15 days of the filing date of this Order. In any subsequent Motion for Remand, Plaintiff is directed to address only his argument that remand is proper because a wrongful termination claim is only preempted if the employer had a benefits defeating motive in terminating the employee. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 6/6/10.(KSP)
December 10, 2009 59 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 16 Motion to Remand to State Court. Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set for 1/25/10 at 4:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 12/9/09.(KSP)
November 5, 2009 49 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 11/5/09. IT IS ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendants Motion For Disqualification of Plaintiffs Counsel for Improper Ex Parte Communication in Violation of Ethical Rule 4.2. (Dkt. #42)IT IS F URTHER ORDERED excluding from any future proceedings any and all documents and evidence that are the product of counsels ex-parte contacts.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs counsel surrender to Defendant all documentation, including, but notes, m emos, and copies, that is related to or a consequence of counsels ex-parte communications with Ms. de Para.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting reasonable attorneys fees to Defendants for costs incurred. Defendants shall submit an application therefore su pported by an appropriate schedule of fees and costs, together with an appropriate affidavit within ten days of service of this order. Failure to timely file such an application shall be deemed to waive any claim to an award of fees and costs related to this matter. Plaintiffs counsel shall file any opposition to the application for fees and costs within 10 days from the service of the application.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED within 20 days of the service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendants counsel shall jointly cause the delivery of a copy of this order to the appropriate authority within the Arizona State Bar for whatever further investigation, review, or action it may deem appropriate.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED withdrawing the Courts previous Or der granting Plaintiffs Motion to Strike the First Amendment (Dkt. #20) and denying Plaintiffs Motion to Strike. (Dkt. #17).IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiffs Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (Dkt. #47) for the purpose of presenting evidence concerning whether or not Defendants did, in fact, implement the Amendment.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting this matter for Evidentiary Hearing on November 23, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.(KSP)

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: Richards v. Holsum Bakery, Inc., et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Flowers Foods, Inc.
Represented By: Christopher Michael Mason
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Holsum Bakery, Inc.
Represented By: Christopher Michael Mason
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Warren N Richards, IV
Represented By: Daryl M Williams
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 [ 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?