Navaja v. Honolulu Academy of Arts et al
| James J. Navaja |
| Honolulu Academy of Arts, Stephan Jost, Chris Atherall, Linda Ferrara and Jame Husband |
| 1:2015cv00344 |
| August 26, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| Hawaii Office |
| Honolulu |
| LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI |
| RICHARD L. PUGLISI |
| Employment |
| 31 U.S.C. ยง 3729 |
| 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
55
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGES ORDER AND ALLOWING THE PLAINTIFF TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE U.S. DEPT OF LABOR REPORTS" re 53 Motion for Reconsideration re 52 Ord er. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 03/28/2017. (eps, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE COURT'S ORDER AND REVISIT THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS re 23 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 04/18/2016. Plaintiff� 39;s Motion to Reconsider the Court's Order and Revisit the Plaintiff's Claims, filed March 9, 2016, is HEREBY DENIED in its entirety.In light of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration, this Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file his amen ded complaint consistent with the rulings in the 2/29/16 Order by May 18, 2016. This Court CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails to file his amended complaint by May 18, 2016, all of the claims that this Court dismissed without prejudice in the 2/29 /16 Order will be dismissed with prejudice, and this Court will direct the Clerk's Office to issue the final judgment and close the case.In other words, Plaintiff would have no remaining claims in this case. This Court also CAUTIONS Plaintif f that, as to any claim that was dismissed without prejudice in the 2/29/16 Order, if the amended complaint fails to cure the defects identified in that order, the claim may be dismissed with prejudice (eps ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS VERIFIABLE QUI TAM COMPLAINT FOR EMPLOYMENT FRAUD, HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION, RETROACTIVE BACK PAY, FRAUD re 18 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 02/29/2016. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Verifiable Qui Tam Complaint for Employment Fraud, Harassment, Discrimination, Retroactive Back Pay, Fraud, filed January 12, 2 016, is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff must file his amended complaint, consistent with the terms of this Order, by no later than April 12, 2016 (eps )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEPart icipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications served by first class mail on March 1, 2016
|
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 Hawaii 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.
