BERNADIN v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC.

Justia Dockets & Filings Seventh Circuit Indiana Southern District BERNADIN v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC.

BERNADIN v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC.

Plaintiff:	EMMANUEL JACKSON BERNADIN, JR.
Defendant:	MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC.
Case Number:	1:2017cv02753
Filed:	August 11, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge:	Tim A. Baker
Presiding Judge:	Tanya Walton Pratt
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act
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
March 4, 2019	Filing 89 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' 51 PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF'S 63 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY - For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 51 ) is GRANTED. The ADA claim is dismisse d with prejudice as to all Defendants because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). The race discrimination and negligent training claims are dismissed without prejudice as to Keystone Hotel. As there may be some set of facts, beyond mere speculation on the part of Bernadin, that could support his claims against Keystone Hotel, Bernadin may seek leave to amend his pleadings within 14 days of the date of this Entry, if he determines that facts do support those dismissed claims. Additionally, Bernadin's Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 63 ) is GRANTED. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/4/2019. (NAD)
May 23, 2018	Filing 72 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/17/2018. The Court held a telephonic status conference and discussed with the parties Defendants' motion to amend the Case Management Plan and to bifurcate discovery. Defendants seek to enlarge deadlines and to stay all discovery related to the ADA claim until this Court rules on the pending m otion to dismiss the ADA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to those discussions, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part. [Filing No. 70 .] The Court grants the unopposed motion to amend the CMP to enlarge deadlines. However, the Court denies Defendants' request to bifurcate and stay any discovery related to Plaintiff's disability discrimination claim. See Order for additional information and established deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker. (SWM)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 4, 2019

Filing 89 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' 51 PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF'S 63 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY - For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 51 ) is GRANTED. The ADA claim is dismisse d with prejudice as to all Defendants because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). The race discrimination and negligent training claims are dismissed without prejudice as to Keystone Hotel. As there may be some set of facts, beyond mere speculation on the part of Bernadin, that could support his claims against Keystone Hotel, Bernadin may seek leave to amend his pleadings within 14 days of the date of this Entry, if he determines that facts do support those dismissed claims. Additionally, Bernadin's Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 63 ) is GRANTED. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/4/2019. (NAD)

May 23, 2018

Filing 72 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/17/2018. The Court held a telephonic status conference and discussed with the parties Defendants' motion to amend the Case Management Plan and to bifurcate discovery. Defendants seek to enlarge deadlines and to stay all discovery related to the ADA claim until this Court rules on the pending m otion to dismiss the ADA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to those discussions, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part. [Filing No. 70 .] The Court grants the unopposed motion to amend the CMP to enlarge deadlines. However, the Court denies Defendants' request to bifurcate and stay any discovery related to Plaintiff's disability discrimination claim. See Order for additional information and established deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker. (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: BERNADIN v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: EMMANUEL JACKSON BERNADIN, JR.
Represented By:	Katrina Michelle Kelly
Represented By:	Louis T. Perry
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: MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC.
Represented By:	Nicholas Gene Brunette
Represented By:	Lyndsay I. Ignasiak
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?