Bray v. Paetec Communications, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Steven Bray
Defendant: Windstream Communications, Inc. and Paetec Communications, Inc.
Case Number: 2:2012cv00282
Filed: May 21, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Office: Ft. Myers Office
County: Lee
Presiding Judge: Sheri Polster Chappell
Presiding Judge: Unassigned Judge
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 621
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 24, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 49 ORDER re 48 Response filed by Windstream Communications, Inc., Paetec Communications, Inc. Defendants' Request to the Court to Correct Motion for Summary Judgment 48 is GRANTED. For the same reasons stated in the Court's previous Order, 47 , summary judgment is GRANTED with regard to all claims brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and Chapter 760 of the Florida Statutes, and Florida common law. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment, deny all pending motions as moot, and CLOSE the file. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 1/24/2014. (LMF)
January 9, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 47 ORDER granting 39 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment with Incorporated Memorandum of Law; denying as moot 46 Defendants Motion to File Reply Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Response. Based upon the Court's ruling in this Order in regard to the ADEA claim, the Parties are directed to brief the Court in writing no later than Thursday, January 23, 2014, whether this matter brought pursuant to Chapter 760 of the Florida Statutes and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 should remain. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 1/9/2014. (LMF)
December 20, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 45 ORDER. Defendants shall provide a courtesy copy of the Motion for Summary Judgment and all accompanying exhibits no later than Tuesday, December 24, 2013. (Doc. #39, Doc. #40). Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 12/20/2013. (LMF)
September 24, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER granting 8 Plaintiff Steven Bray's Motion for Extension of Time to Serve the Complaint. The Plaintiff is granted an extension of thirty (30) days to serve the Complaint upon the Defendant. Service must be completed on or before October 25, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 9/24/2012. (LMF)
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 Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bray v. Paetec Communications, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Windstream Communications, Inc.
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: Paetec Communications, Inc.
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 ]
Plaintiff: Steven Bray
Represented By: Geralyn Farrell Noonan
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?