Bright v. Evonic Cyro LLC et al
| Earrick Bright |
| Does and Evonic Cyro LLC |
| 3:2011cv00180 |
| September 6, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Jonesboro Office |
| Mississippi |
| Susan Webber Wright |
| 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
56
ORDER granting 52 Motion for Costs; denying 53 Motion to Quash. Evonik is awarded costs in the amount of $1,1621.95. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 7/18/2013. (jak)
|
|
Filing
51
JUDGMENT pursuant to 50 Opinion and Order. It is considered, ordered, and adjudged that this case be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 05/30/2013. (jak)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER denying as moot 26 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 11/5/2012. (jak)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 3 Evonik's Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons stated, the Court denies Evonik's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's ADA and FMLA claims, but grants Evonik's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's RA claim. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 3/12/2012. (jct)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER granting 6 Motion for Leave to Appear pro hac vice by Stanford G. Wilson; granting 7 Motion for Leave to Appear pro hac vice by Porsche D. Leonce. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 1/23/2012. (jct)
|
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 Arkansas Eastern 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.
