Barr v. One Touch Direct, LLC et al
| Alfred Barr |
| One Touch Direct, LLC, Joseph Mole, Christopher Reed, AT&T and DPG Leasing |
| 8:2015cv02391 |
| October 9, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Tampa Office |
| Hillsborough |
| Virginia M. Hernandez Covington |
| Mark A. Pizzo |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Civil Rights |
| 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
191
ORDER: Defendants One Touch Direct, LLC, AT&T Services, Inc., and DPG Employee Leasing LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims against Defendants with Prejudice (Doc. # 172 ) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). All other motions that are currently pending are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 3/28/2017. (DRW)
|
|
Filing
168
ORDER: To the extent Barr's "Response to Defendant Joseph Mole's Dispositive Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint" (Doc. # 167 ) requests relief, it is denied for failure to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a). Barr shall file his proposed fourth amended complaint by March 6, 2017, as previously ordered (Doc. # 166). Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 3/3/2017. (DRW)
|
|
Filing
162
ORDER: Pro se Plaintiff Alfred Barr's "Request for District Judge to Review Order's [sic] Issued by Magistrate Judge" (Doc. # 116 ), which the Court construes as a Rule 72(a) objection to the June 17, 2016, Order entered by Judge Pizzo (Doc. # 112 ), is denied. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/27/2017. (DRW)
|
|
Filing
131
ORDER: Pro se Plaintiff Alfred Barr's Motion for Rehearing (Doc. # 127 ), which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), is denied. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/14/2016. (DRW)
|
|
Filing
126
ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 121 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Pro se Plaintiff Alfred Barr's Motion for Permission to Appeal in Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 115 ) is DENIED. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/2/2016. (DRW)
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER: Barr has until and including June 27, 2016, to effect service of process as to Mole and file proof thereof. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 6/1/2016. (DRW)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER: Plaintiff Alfred Barr's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 79 ) is denied. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/18/2016. (DRW)
|
|
Filing
78
ORDER: One Touch Direct, LLC, AT&T Services, Inc., and DPG Employee Leasing LLC's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 69 ), and Defendants Joseph Mole and Christopher Reed's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 70 ) are granted to the extent provided herein. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 4/22/2016. (DRW)
|
|
Filing
75
ORDER: Plaintiff Alfred Barr's Motion to Review Administrative Prerequisites (Doc. # 61 ) is denied. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 4/15/2016. (DRW)
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER: Defendants One Touch Direct, LLC, AT&T Services, Inc., and DPG Employee Leasing LLC's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 43 ) is granted as stated in the Order. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and, thereafter, close this case. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/23/2016. (DRW)
|
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 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.
