Graham v. Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc.
| Denise Graham |
| Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. |
| 8:2016cv01324 |
| May 26, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Tampa Office |
| Pinellas |
| Amanda Arnold Sansone |
| James S. Moody |
| Other Labor Litigation |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1681 |
| 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
65
ORDER: The Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Notices to Settlement Class 64 is granted. The Court approves the proposed notice plan and the language of the notice proposed by the parties. The Court sets this case for hea ring for Final approval of the Settlement on FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2018, AT 9:00 A.M., and instructs the parties to include this hearing date, time, and location in the Notice to be sent pursuant to the notice plan. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 10/10/2017. (LN)
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 50 is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification 44 is granted. The Court certifies the following class: Background Check Class: All Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. employ ees and job applicants who applied for or worked in a position at Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. in the United States and who were the subject of a consumer report that was procured by Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. within two years of the fi ling of this complaint and as to whom Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. used the employment application and purported disclosure and authorization form substantially similar to Exhibit A. The Court approves Denise Graham as Class Representative and her counsel, Andrew Ross Frisch, C. Ryan Morgan, and Marc Reed Edelman, as Class Counsel. The parties are provided thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to confer regarding issues that may arise associated with the administration of the clas s, including the form and content of the notice, and the establishment of an opt-out period and procedure, and shall advise the Court on these efforts and whether there are issues that require the Court's resolution. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 6/28/2017. (LN)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts One and Two of the Amended Complaint 19 is DENIED. Defendant shall file an answer to the amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 10/26/2016. (LN)
|
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
| Search for this case: Graham v. Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Denise Graham | |
| Represented By: | Marc Reed Edelman |
| Represented By: | Andrew Ross Frisch |
| Represented By: | C. Ryan Morgan |
| 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: Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Vanessa Arun Patel |
| Represented By: | Grant David Petersen |
| 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.
