RIPBERGER v. CORIZON, INC.

RIPBERGER v. CORIZON, INC.

Plaintiff:	DIANE M RIPBERGER
Defendant:	CORIZON, INC.
Case Number:	1:2011cv01394
Filed:	October 18, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge:	Mark J. Dinsmore
Presiding Judge:	Tanya Walton Pratt
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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 17, 2013	Filing 86 ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS - The Court acknowledges that Ms. Ripberger was a qualified and capable substance abuse counselor. She was an unfortunate victim of a reduced workforce following the privatization of substance abuse counseling in Indiana p risons. Yet despite the Court's sympathies, it cannot find that Ms. Ripberger was a victim of discrimination or retaliation. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, Corizon's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 56 ) is GRANTED. Corizon' ;s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 78 ) is DENIED and Ms. Ripberger's Motion for Leave to File Amended Surreply (Dkt. 80 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk is ordered to file Ms. Ripberger's Amended Surreply as of the date of this Entry. A separate judgment will follow. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/17/2013. (JD)
September 20, 2012	Filing 51 ORDER denying Deft's 42 Motion to Strike; granting in part and denying in part Pltf's 37 Motion to Compel (see Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/20/2012. (SWM)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 17, 2013

Filing 86 ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS - The Court acknowledges that Ms. Ripberger was a qualified and capable substance abuse counselor. She was an unfortunate victim of a reduced workforce following the privatization of substance abuse counseling in Indiana p risons. Yet despite the Court's sympathies, it cannot find that Ms. Ripberger was a victim of discrimination or retaliation. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, Corizon's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 56 ) is GRANTED. Corizon' ;s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 78 ) is DENIED and Ms. Ripberger's Motion for Leave to File Amended Surreply (Dkt. 80 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk is ordered to file Ms. Ripberger's Amended Surreply as of the date of this Entry. A separate judgment will follow. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/17/2013. (JD)

September 20, 2012

Filing 51 ORDER denying Deft's 42 Motion to Strike; granting in part and denying in part Pltf's 37 Motion to Compel (see Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/20/2012. (SWM)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: RIPBERGER v. CORIZON, INC.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: CORIZON, INC.
Represented By:	Toni M. Everton
Represented By:	Edward E. Hollis
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 ]
Plaintiff: DIANE M RIPBERGER
Represented By:	Richard L. Darst
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?