Cervantes v. Ardagh Group

Cervantes v. Ardagh Group

Plaintiff:	Juan Cervantes
Defendant:	Ardagh Group
Case Number:	1:2016cv11080
Filed:	December 5, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office:	Chicago Office
County:	Cook
Presiding Judge:	Ronald A. Guzman
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1441
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
April 30, 2019	Filing 81 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 4/30/2019: Defendant Ardagh Group's motion for sanctions 67 is denied. On Ardagh Group's bill of costs, the Clerk of Court is directed to tax costs in favor of Ardagh Group in the amount of $2,885.50. [For further details see Background]. Mailed notice(is, )
November 14, 2017	Filing 58 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 11/14/2017: Defendant's motion for summary judgment 29 is granted, and judgment will be entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff. Defendant's motio n to strike plaintiff's response to defendant's statement of undisputed facts and plaintiff's counter-statement of undisputed facts 42 is denied as moot. Plaintiff's motion to extend time to depose expert witnesses 47 is denied as moot. Plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's statement of undisputed material facts and exhibits 53 is denied as moot. Civil case terminated. [For further details see Memorandum Opinion and Order]. Mailed notice(is, )

Date Filed

Document Text

April 30, 2019

Filing 81 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 4/30/2019: Defendant Ardagh Group's motion for sanctions 67 is denied. On Ardagh Group's bill of costs, the Clerk of Court is directed to tax costs in favor of Ardagh Group in the amount of $2,885.50. [For further details see Background]. Mailed notice(is, )

November 14, 2017

Filing 58 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 11/14/2017: Defendant's motion for summary judgment 29 is granted, and judgment will be entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff. Defendant's motio n to strike plaintiff's response to defendant's statement of undisputed facts and plaintiff's counter-statement of undisputed facts 42 is denied as moot. Plaintiff's motion to extend time to depose expert witnesses 47 is denied as moot. Plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's statement of undisputed material facts and exhibits 53 is denied as moot. Civil case terminated. [For further details see Memorandum Opinion and Order]. Mailed notice(is, )

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Cervantes v. Ardagh Group
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Juan Cervantes
Represented By:	David Rubenstein
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: Ardagh Group
Represented By:	Rachel Beth Cowen
Represented By:	Sabreena Torez El-Amin
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.

Why Is My Information Online?