Wallace v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Arizona District Court Wallace v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

Wallace v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

Plaintiff:	Stacy Wallace
Defendant:	Lockheed Martin Corporation
Case Number:	2:2018cv00463
Filed:	February 9, 2018
Court:	US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office:	Phoenix Division Office
County:	Maricopa
Presiding Judge:	David G Campbell
Nature of Suit:	Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action:	29 U.S.C. § 2601
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
June 18, 2019	Filing 44 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 6/18/2019.(DGC, nvo)
May 14, 2019	Filing 34 ORDER Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 19 is granted in part and denied in part: Summary judgment is denied on Wallace's interference by discouragement claim and her retaliation claim for opposing Sellers' discouragement. Sum mary judgment is granted on all remaining claims. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike 29 is granted. The Court will hold a telephone conference on May 28, 2019 at 3:30 p.m. for the purpose of setting the pretrial conference and trial in this matter. Counsel for Plaintiff shall initiate a conference call to include counsel for all parties and the Court. If a dial-in number is to be used, counsel for Plaintiff shall provide the dial-in information to counsel for all parties and the Court no later than May 24, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 5/14/19. (CLB)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 18, 2019

Filing 44 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 6/18/2019.(DGC, nvo)

May 14, 2019

Filing 34 ORDER Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 19 is granted in part and denied in part: Summary judgment is denied on Wallace's interference by discouragement claim and her retaliation claim for opposing Sellers' discouragement. Sum mary judgment is granted on all remaining claims. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike 29 is granted. The Court will hold a telephone conference on May 28, 2019 at 3:30 p.m. for the purpose of setting the pretrial conference and trial in this matter. Counsel for Plaintiff shall initiate a conference call to include counsel for all parties and the Court. If a dial-in number is to be used, counsel for Plaintiff shall provide the dial-in information to counsel for all parties and the Court no later than May 24, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 5/14/19. (CLB)

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: Wallace v. Lockheed Martin Corporation
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Stacy Wallace
Represented By:	Joshua William Carden
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 ]
Defendant: Lockheed Martin Corporation
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?