Stephens v. Time Customer Service, Inc. et al
| Nina Stephens |
| Time Customer Service, Inc. and Henry Lescaille |
| 8:2017cv01338 |
| June 6, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Tampa Office |
| Pinellas |
| Virginia M. Hernandez Covington |
| Anthony E. Porcelli |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 1132 |
| None |
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
40
ORDER: Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Nina Stephens' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Counterclaim (Doc. # 38 ) is DENIED. Stephens' Answer to the Amended Counterclaim is due December 20, 2017. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/6/2017. (DMD)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER: Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Nina Stephens's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim (Doc. # 26 ) is GRANTED IN PART. Counts I and II of the Counterclaim are DISMISSED as preempted by ERISA. Counts III and IV are DISMISSED with leave to amend by November 3, 2017. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/24/2017. (DMD)
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER: Defendants Time Customer Service, Inc., Severance Plan and Henry Lescaille's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 8 ) is DENIED. Defendants' answers to the Complaint are due September 5, 2017. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/22/2017. (DMD)
|
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.
