Blakely et al v. Big Lots Stores Inc
| Lorine Blakely, Lillian M Brown, Tierney Lokey, Mabel Owusu, Julia E Rogers, Angela Sales-Stephens, Leola Nancy Stone, Verretta Terry, Kia Thomas, Angela L Walker, Marlo Williams and Mary B Williams |
| Big Lots Stores Inc |
| 2:2010cv00342 |
| August 26, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Hammond Office |
| Lake |
| James T Moody |
| Andrew P Rodovich |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| 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
129
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING (1) Plaintiffs Motion in Limine No. 1 to Bar Evidence of Public Benefits Received by any Plaintiff DE 96 ; (2) Plaintiffs Motion in Limine No. 2 to Bar Reference to the EEOC Final Determination DE 99 ; (3) Plaintiffs Mot ion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Non-Party Witnesses from the Courtroom During Trial DE 100 ; (4) Plaintiffs Motion in Limine No. 4 to Bar any Suggestion that Plaintiff Rogers Previously Filed a Charge of Discrimination Against Defendant Big Lots Inc. DE 101 ; (5) Plaintiffs Motion in Limine No. 5 to Bar the use of Undisclosed Witnesses DE 102 ; and(6) Plaintiffs Motion in Limine No. 6 to Bar Evidence, Argument, or Mention of Dismissed Plaintiffs DE 103 . Signed by Magistrate Judge John E M artin on 5/3/16. The Court hereby DENIES: (1) Defendants Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Statements Made by Unidentified Declarants DE 106 ;(2) Defendants Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Defendants EEOC Investigation DE 107 ; Defendants Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Former Plaintiffs Claims for which the Court Entered Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant DE 108 ; and (4) Defendants Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding Punitive Damages DE 109 . Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 5/3/16 (kjp)
|
|
Filing
82
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 66 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants motion for summary judgment is granted on all claims by plaintiffs Leola Nancy Stone, Lorine Blakely, Lillian Brown, Mary Williams, Tierney Lokey, Angela Walker, and Marlo Williams. Defendants motion for summary judgment is denied as to all claims by Mabel Owusu, Kia Thomas, Julia Rogers, and Verretta Terry. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 6/17/2015. (kds)
|
|
Filing
81
OPINION AND ORDER, DENYING 72 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment on All Claims of Plaintiff Angela Sales Stephens filed by Big Lots Stores Inc. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 8/28/14. (kjp)
|
|
Filing
58
OPINION AND ORDER: Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART AS MOOT 47 Motion to Compel Certain Discovery Responses and DENIES 48 Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 5/21/2012. cc: John J Krimm PHV, Jr (tc)
|
|
Filing
30
OPINION AND ORDER: Court GRANTS 16 Motion to Dismiss as to Thomas', Walker's, and Owusu's claims of age discrimination in violation of the ADEA. It is DENIED as to all other claims. Thus the case proceeds as to all plaintiffs' claims of race discrimination, Sales-Stephens' claim of retaliation, and Blakely's, Brown's, Rogers', Stone's, Terry's, and Mary B. Williams' claims of age discrimination. Court DENIES 22 motion for partial summary judgment and 25 motion to strike. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 6/29/2011. (tc)
|
|
Filing
29
OPINION AND ORDER: Court GRANTS 14 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 4/6/2011. (tc)
|
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
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.
