Michols v. Regency Park Capital 2011 Incorporated et al
| Dorothy Michols |
| Regency Park Capital 2011 Incorporated and Ranjit Singh |
| 2:2012cv00491 |
| March 8, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| Neil V Wake |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| Plaintiff |
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
12
ORDER: By 05/10/12, Plaintiff shall submit a trial brief of no more than fifteen pages on the following issues: (1) Regarding Count 3 (Defamation Per Se), whether this counts states a claim upon which relief can be granted in light of the failure to allege any statements or their falsity. (2) Regarding Count 4 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress), whether this count states a claim upon which relief can be granted. (3) Regarding Count 5 (Arizona Employment Protection Act), whether this count states a claim upon which relief can be granted in light of A.R.S. § 23-1501(3)(b). FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff and her counsel shall appear on 05/17/12 at 2:30 PM, at 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona, Courtroom 504, for an evidentiary hearing and oral argument regarding Plaintiff's 11 Application for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendants. See order for details. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 4/16/12. (NKS)
|
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 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.
