Bunting v. Kellogg's Corporation

Bunting v. Kellogg's Corporation

Plaintiff:	Lenworth Bunting
Defendant:	Kellogg's Corporation
Case Number:	3:2017cv01445
Filed:	August 29, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office:	New Haven Office
County:	Hartford
Presiding Judge:	Janet C. Hall
Nature of Suit:	Employment
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
January 16, 2019	Filing 62 RULING granting 50 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the foregoing reasons, Kelloggs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 50 ) is GRANTED. If Bunting wishes to pursue the state law claim that he raised in his opposition briefs, he may do so by fi ling a motion to amend his Complaint on or beforeFebruary 8, 2019. In this motion, Bunting must set forth sufficient factual allegations to afford Kellogg fair notice of the state law claim that he seeks to bring and the grounds on which this claim i s based. Bunting must attach a proposed Amended Complaint that sets forth this and only this state law claim. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 12(a). Because all of Buntings federal law claims have been dismissed, Bunting is reminded that this court may only consider his state law claim if it has diversity jurisdiction. If Bunting files a motion to amend his Complaint, the court will decide at that time whether permitting such an amendment would be proper at this stage of the litigation. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 1/16/2019. (Lewis, D) Modified on 1/16/2019 (Lewis, D).

Date Filed

Document Text

January 16, 2019

Filing 62 RULING granting 50 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the foregoing reasons, Kelloggs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 50 ) is GRANTED. If Bunting wishes to pursue the state law claim that he raised in his opposition briefs, he may do so by fi ling a motion to amend his Complaint on or beforeFebruary 8, 2019. In this motion, Bunting must set forth sufficient factual allegations to afford Kellogg fair notice of the state law claim that he seeks to bring and the grounds on which this claim i s based. Bunting must attach a proposed Amended Complaint that sets forth this and only this state law claim. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 12(a). Because all of Buntings federal law claims have been dismissed, Bunting is reminded that this court may only consider his state law claim if it has diversity jurisdiction. If Bunting files a motion to amend his Complaint, the court will decide at that time whether permitting such an amendment would be proper at this stage of the litigation. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 1/16/2019. (Lewis, D) Modified on 1/16/2019 (Lewis, D).

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: Bunting v. Kellogg's Corporation
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Lenworth Bunting
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: Kellogg's Corporation
Represented By:	Christopher A. Sica
Represented By:	Jennifer J. Stocker
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?