Imbody v. C&R Plating Corp
| Steve Imbody |
| C&R Plating Corp |
| 1:2008cv00218 |
| September 24, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Civil Rights: Jobs Office |
| Whitley |
| Roger B Cosbey |
| Robert L Miller |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:12101 Americans with Disabilites Act |
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
110
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 109 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Steve Imbody, C&R Plating Corp. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 8/23/2010. (lns)
|
|
Filing
104
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 101 MOTION to Quash Non-Party Subpoenas and for a Protective Order filed by Steve Imbody for failure to comply with LR 37.1. The motion can be renewed if necessary after counsel conduct a conference or the Pla shows that a conference was attempted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 8/10/2010. (lns)
|
|
Filing
90
OPINION and ORDER denying 85 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 07/16/10. (lrm)
|
|
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER denying 78 Motion to Exclude Anticipated Expert Testimony of Robert Barkhaus. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 6/23/10. (lrm)
|
|
Filing
75
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 68 First Motion to Compel Discovery Responses by Defendant C&R Plating Corp. Dft may select 16 of its unanswered interrogatories from its First Set of Interrogatories and resubmit them to Pla. Pla shall have 30 days from his receipt of interrogatories to respond. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 2/12/2010. (lns)
|
|
Filing
47
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER; Deft's 33 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to para 74 of the ADA claim for failure to accommodate; the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to counts II and III, the supplemental state law claims. deft's request for sanctions is DENIED. deft's 44 Motion to Strike DENIED as MOOT. The case remains pending as to the ADA claim sans paragraph 74. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 8/20/09. (lrm)
|
|
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 16 Motion to Dismiss by Deft C&R Plating Corp; motion is DENIED as to the ADA claim for failure to accommodate and GRANTED as to the claim of ADA retaliation. Pltf has 15 days to file an Amended Complaint as outlined in this Order; DENYING AS MOOT 14 Motion for Oral Argument by Deft C&R Plating Corp. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 1/23/2009. (lns)
|
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 Indiana Northern 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: Imbody v. C&R Plating Corp | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Steve Imbody | |
| Represented By: | Anna Marie Hearn |
| 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: C&R Plating Corp | |
| 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.
