Bray v. United Water

Bray v. United Water

Plaintiff:	Anthrice Bray
Defendant:	United Water
Case Number:	2:2010cv00157
Filed:	April 14, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
Office:	Hammond Office
County:	Lake
Presiding Judge:	Paul R Cherry
Presiding Judge:	James T Moody
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000
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
May 10, 2011	Filing 39 OPINION AND ORDER granting 34 Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 37(b)(2)(A) and denying as moot 31 Motion for Summary Judgment. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Court further ORDERS that Mr. Bray and his attorney shall pay United Water it s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion, including the time spent in preparing the reply brief. United Water to FILE with the Court on or before 5/24/2011 an itemized statement of attorney fees and costs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 5/10/11. (mc)
December 16, 2010	Filing 20 OPINION AND ORDER taking under advisement 15 Motion to Compel; denying 17 Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) but ORDERING the sanction set forth in this Order. Plaintiff to FILE a response to the motion, if any, on or be fore 1/3/2011. The Court sua sponte ORDERS that the discovery deadline and expert discovery deadlines are extended to 2/11/2011. All other deadlines set in the August 5, 2010 Scheduling Order are REAFFIRMED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 12/16/10. (mc)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 10, 2011

Filing 39 OPINION AND ORDER granting 34 Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 37(b)(2)(A) and denying as moot 31 Motion for Summary Judgment. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Court further ORDERS that Mr. Bray and his attorney shall pay United Water it s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion, including the time spent in preparing the reply brief. United Water to FILE with the Court on or before 5/24/2011 an itemized statement of attorney fees and costs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 5/10/11. (mc)

December 16, 2010

Filing 20 OPINION AND ORDER taking under advisement 15 Motion to Compel; denying 17 Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) but ORDERING the sanction set forth in this Order. Plaintiff to FILE a response to the motion, if any, on or be fore 1/3/2011. The Court sua sponte ORDERS that the discovery deadline and expert discovery deadlines are extended to 2/11/2011. All other deadlines set in the August 5, 2010 Scheduling Order are REAFFIRMED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 12/16/10. (mc)

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

Search for this case: Bray v. United Water
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Anthrice Bray
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: United Water
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?