Stribling v. Concord Village

Plaintiff: Gregory Stribling
Defendant: Concord Village
Case Number: 2:2010cv02139
Filed: October 6, 2010
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: James A Teilborg
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331
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
August 19, 2011 36 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss 31 is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this action in its entirety with prejudice. That Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Amended Complaint 34 is DENIED as untimely. That Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Complaint 32 is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 8/19/11.(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: Stribling v. Concord Village
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Gregory Stribling
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: Concord Village
Represented By: Allyssa B Birnley
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?