CANTLEY v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC.

Justia Dockets & Filings Seventh Circuit Indiana Southern District CANTLEY v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC.

CANTLEY v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC.

Plaintiff:	ALESA A CANTLEY
Defendant:	INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC.
Case Number:	1:2013cv01296
Filed:	August 15, 2013
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
September 28, 2015	Filing 73 ORDER denying Defendant's 53 Motion for Summary Judgment. In construing the record in plaintiff's favor, as the Court must do, the designated evidence and the factual disputes between the parties preclude entry of summary judgment on Ms. Cantley's retaliation claim. Accordingly, IU Health's Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 53) is DENIED. The parties are further ordered to confer with the Magistrate Judge to reschedule all deadlines. A trial date will be scheduled by separate Entry. (see order)Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/28/2015. (JLS)
November 21, 2014	Filing 64 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 63 Motion to Seal Documents 56 and [57-12] and to maintain 60 and 62 under seal. Defendant is ORDERED to publicly file properly redacted versions of Docket Nos. 57-12 and 62 within 7 days of the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 11/21/2014. (CBU)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 28, 2015

Filing 73 ORDER denying Defendant's 53 Motion for Summary Judgment. In construing the record in plaintiff's favor, as the Court must do, the designated evidence and the factual disputes between the parties preclude entry of summary judgment on Ms. Cantley's retaliation claim. Accordingly, IU Health's Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 53) is DENIED. The parties are further ordered to confer with the Magistrate Judge to reschedule all deadlines. A trial date will be scheduled by separate Entry. (see order)Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/28/2015. (JLS)

November 21, 2014

Filing 64 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 63 Motion to Seal Documents 56 and [57-12] and to maintain 60 and 62 under seal. Defendant is ORDERED to publicly file properly redacted versions of Docket Nos. 57-12 and 62 within 7 days of the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 11/21/2014. (CBU)

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: CANTLEY v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: ALESA A CANTLEY
Represented By:	Jason Porter Cleveland
Represented By:	John H. Haskin
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: INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC.
Represented By:	Bonnie L. Martin
Represented By:	Dorothy D. Parson
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?