HIRLSTON v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
Plaintiff: KAREN R. HIRLSTON
Defendant: COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
Case Number: 1:2017cv04699
Filed: December 21, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Matthew P. Brookman
Presiding Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
October 23, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 126 ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for a Bench Trial or, in the Alternative, Motion to Continue Jury Trial - the Court DENIES Hirlston's "Motion for a Bench Trial or, in the Alternative, Motion to Continue Jury Trial." (Filing No. 123 .). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/23/2020. (TRG)
October 13, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 118 ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE - For the preceding reasons, Hirlston's Motion in Limine (Filing No. 88 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Costco's Motions in Limine (Filing No. 79 ; Filing No. 80 ; Filing No. 81 ; Filing No. [8 2]; Filing No. 83 ; Filing No. 84 ; Filing No. 85 ) also are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. An order in limine is not a final, appealable order. If the parties believe that specific evidence is inadmissible during the trial, counsel may raise specific objections to that evidence. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/13/2020. (NAD)
December 18, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 62 ENTRY - DENYING DEFENDANT'S 44 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. On July 3, 2019, Hirlston filed a timely motion contending that Costco introduced new legal arguments in its Reply when it argued that "Ms. Hirlston implicitly concede[d] that the job description for the Optical Department Manager position is evidence of its essential functions." (Filing No. 59 at 7). Costco has not responded to the Motion or otherwise opposed the request. Accordingly, the Motion is granted. The Court will consider Hirlston's response to new legal arguments that are contained in the Surreply docketed at Filing No. 59-1. Because Costco failed to negate the second element of Hirlston's claim, and because it did not challenge the f irst and third prongs, the Court denies summary judgment as to Hirlston's discrimination claim. For the reasons stated above, Costco's Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 44 ) is DENIED and Hirlston's Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 59 ) is GRANTED. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/18/2019. (NAD)
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: HIRLSTON v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
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: KAREN R. HIRLSTON
Represented By: Kevin W. Betz
Represented By: Jamie A. Maddox
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?