SPRIGGS v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC
| LATANYA SPRIGGS |
| MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC |
| 2:2013cv00051 |
| April 4, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia |
| Brunswick Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| James E. Graham |
| Lisa G. Wood |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Job Discrimination (Race) |
| 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
153
ORDER Administratively Closing this case, within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, the parties may present a dismissal judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 6/1/2016. (ca)
|
|
Filing
145
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 144 Motion for an Expedited Response. Defendant is ORDERED to file a response to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Relief from the Court's Order, dkt. no. 143, on or before Friday, May 6, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. The May 10, 2016 jury trial of this case is hereby CONTINUED. The Court will reschedule the trial in the near future. The Court will hold a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Relief before the undersigned on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom One of the Federal Courthouse at 801 Gloucester Street in Brunswick, Georgia. Additionally, the Court will hold a subsequent hearing to address the discovery issues raised at the May 2, 2016 hearing and the parties' re cent correspondence with the Court. That hearing will take place before Judge R. Stan Baker on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, at 2:30 p.m. Courtroom One of the Federal Courthouse at 801 Gloucester Street in Brunswick, Georgia. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 5/5/2016. (csr)
|
|
Filing
135
ORDER denying Defendant's 118 Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law in its entirety. This case will proceed to retrial as scheduled. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 4/26/2016. (ca)
|
|
Filing
99
ORDER dismissing in part, SUSTAINING in part, and OVERRULING in part 70 & 78 Objections to Plaintiff's Exhibit List and Deposition Designations. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 10/19/2015. (csr)
|
|
Filing
98
ORDER sustaining 94 Plaintiff's Objections to the 88 Magistrate Judge's Order. Plaintiff's Objection are SUSTAINED to the extent she intends to offer evidence of the Enumerated Allegations to prove her claims of discrimination. The remainder of the Magistrate Judge's Order on Defendant's Motion in Limine shall remain the order of the Court. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 10/6/2015. (csr)
|
|
Filing
88
ORDER granting in part as unopposed and otherwise granted Defendant's 64 Motion in Limine. Any party seeking to object to any portion of this Order must file written Objections NO LATER THAN FIVE (5) DAYS AFTER THE ENTERY OF THIS ORDER UPON THE DOCKET AND ORDER OF THIS CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 8/21/2015. (ca)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER granting in part as to Plaintiff's post-employment retaliation claim and as to those allegations in Counts II and IV that Mercedes Benz retaliated against Plaintiff because of her comments in the written survey, and that Mercedes Benz reta liated against her by making false statement to prospective employers and denying in part as to Counts I and II of Plaintiff's claims, and for Counts II and IV, but only for the allegations in those Counts that Mercedes Benz fired Plaintiff because she made verbal complaints about racial discrimination to her supervisors re 30 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 9/26/2014. (ca)
|
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 Georgia Southern 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.
