Fletcher v. Starbucks Corp

Fletcher v. Starbucks Corp

Plaintiff:	Jeffrey Fletcher
Defendant:	Starbucks Corp
Case Number:	3:2014cv01898
Filed:	December 17, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office:	New Haven Office
County:	New Haven
Presiding Judge:	Janet C. Hall
Nature of Suit:	Housing/Accommodations
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000
Jury Demanded By:	None

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
July 13, 2015	Filing 29 RULING The defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is granted as to the plaintiffs public accommodation claim under C.G.S.A. § 46a-64(a). The Motion is denied as to the plaintiffs claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 7/10/2015. (Lewis, D)
May 14, 2015	Filing 20 ruling granting in part with respect to Count One, insofar as that Count may be construed to state a claim arising under federal law and denying in part without Prejudice to refiling after the court determines which court has subject-matter jurisdict ion to hear this case. re 13 Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW Cause no later than May 21, 2015 Why the case should not be remanded to the Connecticut Superior Court. The defendant may also submit a filing on this issue by the same date. Any response to any filings by either party shall be submitted no later than May 28, 2015. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 5/13/2015. (Malone, P.)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 13, 2015

Filing 29 RULING The defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is granted as to the plaintiffs public accommodation claim under C.G.S.A. § 46a-64(a). The Motion is denied as to the plaintiffs claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 7/10/2015. (Lewis, D)

May 14, 2015

Filing 20 ruling granting in part with respect to Count One, insofar as that Count may be construed to state a claim arising under federal law and denying in part without Prejudice to refiling after the court determines which court has subject-matter jurisdict ion to hear this case. re 13 Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW Cause no later than May 21, 2015 Why the case should not be remanded to the Connecticut Superior Court. The defendant may also submit a filing on this issue by the same date. Any response to any filings by either party shall be submitted no later than May 28, 2015. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 5/13/2015. (Malone, P.)

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 Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Fletcher v. Starbucks Corp
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jeffrey Fletcher
Represented By:	William B. Wynne
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: Starbucks Corp
Represented By:	Victoria Woodin Chavey
Represented By:	David C. Salazar-Austin
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?