Lorona v. Arizona Summit Law School LLC et al
||Paula C Lorona
||Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation and Unknown Parties
||May 28, 2015
||US District Court for the District of Arizona
||Phoenix Division Office
||Neil V Wake
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
||28 U.S.C. § 1441
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|May 18, 2016
ORDER that Defendant Arizona Summit Law School, LLC's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 35 ) Counts I, II, and III of the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 34 ) is granted with prejudice only to the extent those Counts rely on fraud other than misrepresen tation in enrollment statistics. The Motion is otherwise denied. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may, as of the date of this order, begin discovery as to how many of the Law School's students were Alternative students during the times relevant to Lorona's fraud claims. This discovery shall conclude no later than Friday, 07/15/16. FURTHER ORDERED that if the Law School deems the outcome of this discovery dispositive of Lorona's fraud claims, it may file a motion for summary judgment to that effect no later than Monday, 08/01/16. If no such motion is filed, the parties may then begin general discovery as to Lorona's fraud claims. See order for details. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 5/17/16. (NKS)
|December 16, 2015
ORDER that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21 ) is granted with respect to every claim in the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 20 ) except (1) Title VII sex discrimination arising from the Law School denying Lorona opportunities for promo tion, requiring her to work late, and terminating her; (2) ADA discrimination on the basis of her association with her disabled children; and (3) retaliation for activity protected under Title VII. Infilaw remains a defendant only with respect to L orona's Title VII and ADA discrimination claims arising from denied opportunities for promotion. FURTHER ORDERED that Lorona may file a further amended complaint by 01/15/16. If Lorona does not file a further amended complaint by that date, s he will be held to the position that no amendment could be made that would revive the claims dismissed in this order and may proceed only with her surviving claims, and the time for Defendants to file a responsive pleading will begin to run on the next business day. See order for complete details. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 12/16/15. (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
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?