BROWN v. AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS HOLDINGS, LLC. et al
| 1:2006cv01802 |
| December 19, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Richard L. Young |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex) |
| 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
97
ENTRY granting Defendants' 94 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 2/18/2009. (PG)
|
|
Filing
93
ORDER denying Defendants' 76 Motion for Summary Judgment (see Entry). Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 11/24/08. (PG)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER on 1/31/08 Telephonic Status Conference: Parties appeared by counsel. Argument heard regarding Defts' motion to compel 59 . For the reasons more fully set forth during this conference, the Court made the following rulings (See Order). Defts' counsel shall confer with the Defts regarding Defts' updated settlement position and promptly advise the Magistrate Judge of this position. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 2/5/08. (SWM)
|
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 Southern 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: BROWN v. AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS HOLDINGS, LLC. et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
